Does democracy work?

Pazaz 21

Democracy may not work but it seems to be the best of a bad bunch. Whatever political system is put in place there will always be someone at the top of the political pyramid, wheather it be a council, cabinet or a single person and here in lies the problem. When people get power they tend to use it either to there own selfish benefit or they use it in the best way they know how.

Taking the latter part of that statement it is up to us, as the voting public, to choose a person who we believe will use their power in a way which we would find acceptable and would agree with. This is where the problem is, how can we vote for a person to make a certain decision in a given crisis, we can't. We have to make a judgement call and hope for the best. Also a big drawback of democracy is the lack of an alternative in elections. It seems to be that we are usually voting against someone as much as we are voting for the other person.

The last point i want to make is that democracy seems to be the only system with the 'checks and balances', to borrow a phrase, that are needed to stop our political systems turning into dictatorships, etc. I know that it seems that America is under the dictatorship of Bush, but he will be gone next year along with this cronyies, albiet to be replaced by new cronyies but hopefully better ones!!!

I would also like to echo the comments of 'the Corinthian' about what alternatives are out there and how would they work?

The Corinthian

Pazaz 21 wrote:

The last point i want to make is that democracy seems to be the only system with the 'checks and balances', to borrow a phrase, that are needed to stop our political systems turning into dictatorships, etc.

Actually most systems have such 'checks and balances', it's just that those in democracy appear to be the only ones that work in practice.

I would also like to echo the comments of 'the Corinthian' about what alternatives are out there and how would they work?

I wouldn't hold your breath on the "how would they work" portion of your question.

Pazaz 21

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually most systems have such 'checks and balances', it's just that those in democracy appear to be the only ones that work in practice.

That seems to be the main argument for democracy, that it has worked in the past, and is working at present, unlike all the other types of political systems. It just seems that all the other systems self-destruct eventually. I think the only option is to refine and re-work the democratic model until we get it right (if thats possible is another topic for another thread).

democrates

Pazaz 21 wrote:

The last point i want to make is that democracy seems to be the only system with the 'checks and balances', to borrow a phrase, that are needed to stop our political systems turning into dictatorships, etc. I know that it seems that America is under the dictatorship of Bush, but he will be gone next year along with this cronyies, albiet to be replaced by new cronyies but hopefully better ones!!!

I agree the democrats in power would probably be better, or maybe more aptly "not as bad".

The transparency for those checks and balances to work does not pass muster regardless of who has been in power there over recent decades. For example the day before 9/11 Rumsfeld admitted that 2.3 trillion dollars of the military budget was unnacounted for. As I find the accounting ineptitude defence implausible, I think it's probable that something very wrong is being done in secret.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I would also like to echo the comments of 'the Corinthian' about what alternatives are out there and how would they work?

I think the Swiss have made great progress in direct democracy (swiss political system portal), but it arose as a solution to warring factions and perhaps still bears some scars (very revealing bbc anecdote).

Kudos where it's due, that last story hammers home some of TC's points in various threads about self-interest when power is too devolved, consequently and on deeper consideration I'm now giving more weight to the risk of nimbyism, selfishness, and the potential for radical groups of any persuasion to establish effective fiefdoms while the greater good takes a back seat.

Birds of a feather will flock together over time and while some diversity is welcome I doubt many would support a carte blanche allowing for example a local community to legalise paedophilia or worse. There was an attempt to establish a party supporting the legalisation of paedophilia in the Netherlands or somewhere, and in the US there are some very questionable cultish communities which seem to be untouchable. So let's not devolve too much power.

At the same time we Irish reject moves toward centralising tax policy in the EU. The distribution of power between small and large groups is a fine balance which in peacetime tends to change slowly as any change requires some group entity to relinquish some power and also because wider public support is usually effectively required. (Academic aside - I doubt one may conclude that it's easier to devolve or concentrate power as a rule, conflicting historical examples indicate that circumstances make all the difference, eg. Internet connectivity is a big change in circumstance, and Googles translation efforts may greatly amplify that.)

In Ireland I'd like to see greater transparency, put budgets and minutes of meetings online so we can better see how our communities and country are being run. Then based on reliable information we may consider evolving the distribution of power between local and national, and introducing measures of direct democracy, or not.

Considering on top of the bbc story that Switzerland is home to some firms with bad records; Nestle of the third world baby milk scandal, banks profiting from secret accounts of criminals/corrupt individuals including nazi (stolen Jewish) gold, and certain big pharma operations, I won't hold that or any potential individual national democracy up as a panacea.

The wider circumstance is that global FDI is a take it or leave it deal, and 99.n% of a nation will vote for a livelihood versus adhering to fine principles that put no bread on the table. That said limited opportunity is not zero opportunity, it doesn't amount to a case to avoid trying to improve anything.

However you slice or dice it, the 'tyranny of the majority' still tends to be more humane than what can arise in certain smaller groups. We're in no position to implement global direct democracy or world government and I'm cautious on excessive central planning, but we can work within existing mechanisms to build upon the highest common factors of ethics such as the universal declaration of human rights.

Apologies for the disjointed post, I'm not the best at picking a good serial flow through a mesh.

DadaKopf

Actually, asking 'Does democracy work?' should start with an evidence-based interrogation of sources of power right from the 'lowest' to the 'highest' levels of human life.

As a result of my reading over the hears, the inescapability of the abuse of power implies that (1) anything other than democracy is not acceptable; (2) that a realistic understanding of the sources of power can lead us to a strategy to contain it; (3) direct democracy emerges as the most desirable option in a world where it seems unjustifiable to support the idea that we should surrender all our power to equally, if not more flawed individuals.

In sum: democracy is a tragedy. And like all Greek theatre, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Or, as Beckett wrote in Waiting for Godot, "I can't go on, I'll go on".

That's not to say I'm an existentialist, no, no, no. Perhaps a little drunk.

But perhaps people have another idea about power, but I've never found a more satisfactory tradition of power as Friere, Foucault, Adorno, Habermas, and Bordieu. Establishment figures of the right and libertarian right presen either incomplete, or entirely incorrect theories which only serve the abuse of power.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

That's not to say I'm an existentialist, no, no, no. Perhaps a little drunk.

Any chance you'd respond to my question when you sober up a little?

Pazaz 21

Democrates thanks for the links about direct democracy in swizerland, really interesting stuff. I just browsed through it but it seems like a good system which is working pretty well. The idea of being able to take government decisions, etc, to a public vote sounds like a great idea, a real "check and balance" against the government. I just wonder if it gets in the way of the government actually doing their job? Are they forever inundated by requests for public votes on everything and does this slow down things actually getting done? I didn't know much about direct democracy before but i agree that it looks like the way to go. I don't know how far we should take it here in Ireland but i do think the ability to bring government decisions to a public vote, as i mentioned above, would be a welcome additon to our democracy.

Picking up on your point of power becoming too devolved, one of the biggest problems i have with local town councils, etc, is that they never seem to get anything done, well especially where i live. All the councilors seem to have their own agenda, there are a group which form a majority on the council which do whatever they want and the other few who actually what to do something to help the town are left powerless to do anything. The biggest tragedy to emerge from this is that no decent local people go up for election to the council because they know that even if they get elected they won't be able to do anything.

I say bring in term limits, that should spice things up a bit!!!

democrates

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I just wonder if it gets in the way of the government actually doing their job? Are they forever inundated by requests for public votes on everything and does this slow down things actually getting done?

Though any citizen can intitiate change it takes a large number of signatures on a petition to trigger a vote, that prevents crackpots from interrupting the normal flow of government.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Picking up on your point of power becoming too devolved, one of the biggest problems i have with local town councils, etc, is that they never seem to get anything done, well especially where i live. All the councilors seem to have their own agenda, there are a group which form a majority on the council which do whatever they want and the other few who actually what to do something to help the town are left powerless to do anything. The biggest tragedy to emerge from this is that no decent local people go up for election to the council because they know that even if they get elected they won't be able to do anything.

I say bring in term limits, that should spice things up a bit!!!

Another problem is the creation by central government of scapegoat untouchables such as county managers and the HSE, roles with great power but which sidestep democratic accountability.

No politician takes the blame for PPARS, it was the HSE whodunnit. The design goal was fine, to unify policy across hospitals and economise on IT costs but, the HSE expected to use this IT project as a Trojan horse to bypass the normal change management apparatus, off to a bad start, but the tragic side-effect of this raw power exercise was insufficient involvement of stakeholders so the design was based on a centrally-planned subset of policies that did not give due regard to the true diversity of critical hospital systems and organisations it was supposed to integrate with. The few pilot implementations were not representative, one size did not fit all.

Aside from bringing public sector power back under the umbrella of democratic accountability, transparency is the key, think league tables for politicians. Who did what and when, trends in key indicators such as crime statistics or hospital waiting lists, and the accounts including drill down to the identity of key beneficiaries of decisions. With that information online we can assess performance more accurately and if then, knowing these facts, people vote certain poor politicians in again, so be it, they have the government they deserve.

Jim_Are_Great

I'm curious as to what is meant by democracy (or any other system for that matter) 'working'.
In democracy's case, if it's a simple matter of representation, then democracy as we know it could be called effective. But if we approach our system regarding consistant and accurate ruling, then I feel it is inadequate at best.
I'm no expert. In fact, I'm two steps short of a jackass, but couldn't it be said that for democracy to work, the most fundamental requirement is a well-informed and enthusiastic electorate. I don't know a whole lot, but I know Irish voters, and I know that, en masse, they are by no means informed and enthusiastic.

JSK 252

Meh, Ill try write something a little better to please OscarBravo. Its just my opinion on the subject.

With regards democracy, it is the hope of the democratic people that self government will result in good government. But if a choice has to be made between imperfect self-government and good government imposed from the above, the democrat will prefer imperfect self-government. It is the hope of democrats, however, that need be no such choice in practice. Democrats believe that democracy is the only form of government that can work and is fair to the people.

If we look at the records of many countries such as Great Britian and the United States, the worlds two leading democracies, it has been shown that this is possible.

Im 16 by the way so dont try to be an asshole to me if Im WRONG.

Zombrex

JSK 252 wrote:

With regards democracy, it is the hope of the democratic people that self government will result in good government. But if a choice has to be made between imperfect self-government and good government imposed from the above, the democrat will prefer imperfect self-government. It is the hope of democrats, however, that need be no such choice in practice. Democrats believe that democracy is the only form of government that can work and is fair to the people.

Even more than that, it is the only way to judge "good government" in any fair way.

Using your example above of the imposed government, who decides that this imposed government is actually "good government" The only fair way is to ask the people "Do you think this is good government?" And if they say yes, we do, then the government doesn't need to be imposed in the first place.

democrates

16! Top marks for your level of interest and understanding on this kind of topic.

As for being right or wrong you've got the right approach, "so what!". An idea only deserves loyalty if it fits the evidence better than other ideas. Otherwise drop it like a hot potato and be happy on having a more robust idea set.

A lot of debate also revolves around how universal or specific a given assertion is, to what extent it is true, does the extreme example work or does it depend on certain circumstances.

EG "Lowering taxes boosts the economy". I remember paying 60p in the pound income tax, that was clearly too high and the statement was "true" in my opinion given that starting point. But zero tax would mean no government or state services, in that case "Raising taxes helps society" would be the "truth" in my opinion. The statements truth depends on where you are and where you want to get to, but neither assertion above is easily defended as a universal law.

In general no system can deliver utopia since we can't make a perfect society out of flawed beings. In days of yore the people beset by warlords and cheats clamoured for justice through law, a wise ruler delivering this was hugely popular, but to avoid assassination had to balance popular measures with satisfying the greed for power and wealth of the ever plotting nobility. "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli is a highly recommended read on this topic.

Expectations of the masses back then were limited to minimised suffering, nowadays most people expect a system to protect the greater good while allowing individual freedom, but the balance there and how to achieve it remain contentious issues.

We still and will always have those who want more power and wealth for themselves regardless of anyone else's interests, some even revel in advancing at the expense of others, a predatory Darwinian outlook. At the same time, rare is the person who wouldn't like to win the lotto.

Most people would agree "F the begrudgers, whatever floats your boat so long as it doesn't sink mine". It's ok that a rich mans child has a head start, so long as the possibility exists for a poor mans child to get rich.

If economic growth is bound to finite resources, power and wealth are not in infinite supply. So concentration with the few is at the expense of the many. With a burgeoning population and dwindling resources the question is becoming more pressing. To escape this issue extra-planetary resources are held up as a solution.

This still leaves the question, how much must the many give up to create the possibility for a few to get ahead? What shape of a wealth distribution curve are we happy with?

It is against this backdrop that the debates on what system of government is best and how much government we should have takes place. My preferences for a political machine are based on what design I believe can best deliver an economic and social system I can support.

My view is that we have unsustainable consumption and pollution today, the population is exploding and we have to make serious cutbacks. If some are busy consuming and polluting ever more, then others will have to tighten their belts even more, both now and in the future. I've little tolerance for that state of affairs.

At the moment our political systems are in the net allowing accelerating consumption and pollution, and simultaneously an intensifying gap between rich and poor both nationally and internationally. The correlation is no surprise, but wealth distribution aside we still have to come up with better alternatives, direct democracy and social enterprises are not enough.

In continuously developing my views I'm looking forward to reading "Making Globalisation Work" by Joseph Stiglitz when I get time. Anyone got a heads-up on that?

Jackie laughlin

"Democracy" is not one thing but a range of possibilities. The ideal is direct democracy in a society of equals. That equality would have to extend to power, education, leisure time to participate etc. etc.

The representative democracy with which we are familiar has two roots. Firstly, it recognises that in a large society all cannot participate. Secondly, it recognises that informed judgement may require an educated professional politician with the time to devote to studying complex arguments.

Give me a break, of course I realise that representative democracy doesn't always operate like this in practice.

However, it's important to defend and improve our democracy. Spreading cynicism benefits only the authoritarian forces who fear democracy.

JSK 252

Wicknight wrote:

Even more than that, it is the only way to judge "good government" in any fair way.

Using your example above of the imposed government, who decides that this imposed government is actually "good government" The only fair way is to ask the people "Do you think this is good government?" And if they say yes, we do, then the government doesn't need to be imposed in the first place.

Yah but you have to give people the choice. If you dont give people the choice how are they to judge which is better?

I understand where your coming from though.

banaman

Colonel Sanders wrote:

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?

What do you mean by works?

Does it produce "better government"?
Better than what?
Are people happier, healthier, better fed, housed etc under a democracy?
Possibly but given that the alternatives have not succeeded where they've been tried it would be hard to say.
Although in the case of communism it was never given a chance to prove itself because the capitalist world controlled most of the resources and forced the communist states into an arms race they were never going to win.

However given the embargo and propaganda war waged against it by the US, Cuba has done not too bad a job of providing for its citizens, especially in the education and health fields.
Compared to the US its literacy and mortality figures are impressive. They're probably better than ours too.

It really does depend on what you mean by the term "work"

banaman

JSK 252 wrote:

If we look at the records of many countries such as Great Britian and the United States, the worlds two leading democracies, it has been shown that this is possible.

Britain is a democracy in principle but is in fact ruled by an entrenched elite who control upwards of 90% of the wealth and resources.
For example the majority of the British people voted to ban fox-hunting (its still legal).
Armed police shot an unarmed man they had in a head lock and are still on the streets. More brits are anti-nuclear, anti-Iraq war and anti-trident, than voted for that A..H...e Blair but their views don't count.

The elite decide the agenda then make sure it is carried out.

The US is the same only more so. It is the most unequal society in the developed world and actively disenfranchises its own citizens, many of the poorest of whom have jobs that don't provide sufficient medical care or wages and yet the top 5% "Bush's Haves and Have Mores" have become increasingly wealthy.

To see what I mean watch "Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Price" and any of the films of Michael Moore.
"Supersize Me" is also worth a look as is "The Corporation"

Both the UK and US have media that are controlled by members of the elite and so provide a very narrow and biased amount of information on any topic.
For democracy to work we, the people, have to have access to reliable info in order to make informed decisions.

WE ARE NOT GETTING THE INFO.

QED we are incapable of making informed decisions. Therefore we need "wise" leaders and "experts" in the media to "interpret" the events around us.

WE have a sham democracy because as Emma Goodman famously observed "if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal"

banaman

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin

Jackie laughlin

Banaman,
I agree that we live in an unequal society. However, unlike you I don't reject imperfect democracy. It is a freedom in which struggle can take place.

You do realise that there is a flaw in your argument? If so many people hold views which oppose those of the ruling classes, it cannot be that they are deprived of information.

There is no shortage of information. The problem is that too few people have the time, education or inclination to seek it out and reflect on it. This is compounded by a failure - even when informed - to link political views to voting choice. (To be fair to the average person, journalists almost never frame their material as political.)

The Aer Lingus row is a case in point. I would guess that the vast majority of those who oppose the wholly commercial Aer Lingus decision also hold the view that the state has no business controlling an airline!

banaman

Jackie laughlin,

I don't reject imperfect democracy. I am a firm believer in democracy, my point was that in practice neither the US or UK are truly democratic since only the views and political decisions that suit the elite will be put to the populace. And then couched in such terms as to make the elite's preference the only "sensible" choice.

The point you make about the views of the many which are contrary to those of the elite merely illustrates my point, I feel.

However I absolutely prefer to live in a democracy BUT I believe that what we have is imperefect and even such freedoms as we have, are under increasing threat from the elites and their economic/ political hegemony, and therefore we must become more militant in their defence.

Jackie laughlin

I'm bothered by "militant"!

bonkey

banaman wrote:

my point was that in practice neither the US or UK are truly democratic

No nation is truly democratic in absolute standards....mostly because true democracy is unworkable at such scales.

Jackie laughlin

B,
Are you referring to the "numbers problem" in relation to direct democracy?

democrates

The Iron Rule of Oligarchy
Excerpt:

The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to social viscosity in a large-scale organization. According to the "iron law," democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible.

For efficiency, power positions are created, and power corrupts. My pat answer is transparency, but in order for this to have protection from the oligarchs it needs to be in the constitution and thereby requiring a referendum to change. Contrast that with the Freedom of Information Act which can be repealed or diluted at the whim of those in power, as the previous Irish government did.

The article mentions that there have been exceptions to the Iron Law of Oligarchy, such as the International Typographical Union. The case study "Union Democracy" by Lipset, Trow, & Coleman (orig. pub. 1956)
looks interesting but I haven't gone into the pdf from that page yet.

Lipset, Trow and Coleman largely agree with Michels that there are oligarchical bureaucratic tendencies in all organizations. They point to several factors that made ITU different from most other unions - and organizations - and thus able to defy the iron law.

They noted that unlike most of such organizations, ITU was founded by a group of local unions valuing their autonomy. The existence of factions within the democratic structure (elections) of the union prevented leaders from becoming too corrupt, as each faction was always willing to expose the misdoings of another.

They also point out that similarity between background of members (most of them coming from middle class) further encouraged democratic decision making processes (Goldfield 1998).

One of the conclusions of Lipset, Trow and Coleman research was that behaviour of individuals could be related to the qualities of local environments (groups) and their leaders.(Lipset 1988)

The irony is great, we can live together under a good democracy if we mistrust each other.


That's not a definitive work for all time however. Technology means that rather than depending on factions shopping out each other, the internet allows very full transparency, limited only by privacy and national security concerns.

That said, how many of us would look at the local coco budget if it were available in drill-down detail online?

If you saw some outrageous spending, what would you want to be able to do about it?

jawlie

Of course Democracy works, its just that politicians corrupt it.

In my view, our democracy has been corrupted by the PR system, which can return a government no one actually wants.

But, more importantly, I think our politics has been impoverished by career politicians who depend on the patronage of their boss, and additionally by the whipping system in the Dáil whereby no one is able to vote with their conscience or for what they think is right, but vote the way they are told to by their party bosses, otherwise their careers will be finished.

Democracy would be great, if only we actually had it.

Hotblack Desiato

jawlie wrote:

In my view, our democracy has been corrupted by the PR system, which can return a government no one actually wants.

:rolleyes: the whole point of PR is to return TDs in proportion (roughly, but a lot better than first past the post) with the number of votes cast for each party.
What those parties do after the election and who they decide to coalesce with has got nothing at all to do with our voting system.
First past the post tends to produce a 2 / 2.5 party system with supporters of other candidates forced to either vote tactically, or vote for a candidate with no hope whatsoever of being elected. How is that more democratic.

gbh

In theory Democracy should work. But then again you are talking about Democracy in its purest form as practised by the ancient Greeks in Athens. That was a form of Democracy in which everyone had a chance to speak freely at a meeting of the executive. I don't think the ancient Greeks would be too impressed by the Democracy we have today. Once every five years the people get their say. They say a lot can happen in a week in politics, so just imagine how much happens in five years, an awful lot. At the same time the electorate often tend to have short memories and there can often be a backlash against media commentators who point out that a certian politician is not playing by the rules.

So I think the form of democracy we have in Ireland is a corruption of the pure Democracy known to the Greeks. Power is centralised too much in the hands of the Taoiseach and the government parties who between elections rule just like Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao, and the recent Learner Licence fiasco shows they rule by decree and without prior consultation with the electorate. And no it is not just FF who do this, its the same in every current democracy the world over where ruling parties do what they want and see how much they can get away with and then plead innocence at election time.

But I suppose in one way the modern democracies resemble the ancient Greek one. It is not the best or the brightest idea that wins the day. It is not the well thought out proposal. Nor as evidenced in modern US politics is it the cool heads who win the day. Nope its the person or people who shout loudest, who have a proposal that is superficially good but without substance, its the people who create fear in the public and its usually the hot heads who dominate politics. And so Democracy based on rethoric is usually a flawed form of government.

Dalfiatach

banaman wrote: »

Both the UK and US have media that are controlled by members of the elite and so provide a very narrow and biased amount of information on any topic.
For democracy to work we, the people, have to have access to reliable info in order to make informed decisions.

WE ARE NOT GETTING THE INFO.

QED we are incapable of making informed decisions. Therefore we need "wise" leaders and "experts" in the media to "interpret" the events around us.

Ireland is as bad if not possibly worse than the UK/US for a corrupt media blatantly serving the interests of the entrenched elite class and pumping out nothing but propaganda. The Irish media stinks.

Democracy can only work with a reasonably well-informed electorate. An electorate where half are being fed pure bullsh1t and lies while the other half only care about vacuous celebrity gossip cannot make sensible decisions - even assuming they are given a real choice in the first place!

Somewhere in the last 10 years we lost the Republic. Ireland is no longer a functioning democratic society, but a corrupt oligarchic cartel of vested interests putting on a show of democracy to entertain and divert the masses while they line their own pockets.

democrates

gbh wrote: »

In theory Democracy should work. But then again you are talking about Democracy in its purest form as practised by the ancient Greeks in Athens. That was a form of Democracy in which everyone had a chance to speak freely at a meeting of the executive. I don't think the ancient Greeks would be too impressed by the Democracy we have today. Once every five years the people get their say. They say a lot can happen in a week in politics, so just imagine how much happens in five years, an awful lot. At the same time the electorate often tend to have short memories and there can often be a backlash against media commentators who point out that a certian politician is not playing by the rules.

So I think the form of democracy we have in Ireland is a corruption of the pure Democracy known to the Greeks. Power is centralised too much in the hands of the Taoiseach and the government parties who between elections rule just like Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao, and the recent Learner Licence fiasco shows they rule by decree and without prior consultation with the electorate. And no it is not just FF who do this, its the same in every current democracy the world over where ruling parties do what they want and see how much they can get away with and then plead innocence at election time.

But I suppose in one way the modern democracies resemble the ancient Greek one. It is not the best or the brightest idea that wins the day. It is not the well thought out proposal. Nor as evidenced in modern US politics is it the cool heads who win the day. Nope its the person or people who shout loudest, who have a proposal that is superficially good but without substance, its the people who create fear in the public and its usually the hot heads who dominate politics. And so Democracy based on rethoric is usually a flawed form of government.

Scary scenario, a choice between oligarchy and the mob.

The fact is we don't trust the uninformed mob, and will sacrifice our own ability to have influence in order to prevent our fellow citizens from having it.

The catch-22 is that many people are disinterested because they're powerless to make any input (bar election time).

The only way we can have big change, is by having many small changes over time. Small steps that don't bet the farm, but allow us to learn as we go and improve the system.

Start with local government. One county council, one issue, plenty of notice and debate then vote. I'm no lawyer but my reading of the constitution suggests that the Dail can legislate for this, only if the Dail itself is to have formal citizen input is a constitutional change likely to be required.

artanevilla

Democracy is only as good as the people who vote.

The Corinthian

gbh wrote: »

But then again you are talking about Democracy in its purest form as practised by the ancient Greeks in Athens.

There was very little about Greek democracy that was actually democratic. Additionally, you'll find that the population of a Greek democracy might be a little smaller than a modern one, so the same model may not realistically apply.

Dalfiatach wrote: »

Ireland is as bad if not possibly worse than the UK/US for a corrupt media blatantly serving the interests of the entrenched elite class and pumping out nothing but propaganda. The Irish media stinks.

LOL. Fight teh pawah!