Does democracy work?

democrates

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Fight teh pawah!

And at least we can in this country, sharing first position in the Reporters Sans Frontiers annual press freedom index.

Since the Bertiegate media frenzy was followed by his re-election I find it hard to point a finger at the media here. I don't recall the alternative government complaining that they weren't allowed to get there message out by the media, we heard them loud and clear, they just didn't convince enough floaters.

jawlie

I think if we wanted to improve the level of democracy, we would be able to do a few simple things to achieve it.

The first thing is to put a time limit on the term any one individual can spend in the Dail. In my view the single biggest corrupting factor we have are career politicians who are not free to vote with their conscience, who ar not free to hold the government and the Taoiseach to account without damaging their career in politics. By limiting the time od TD's, that would largely remove this power of teh taoiseach, and make the executive accountable.

In effect, we have less of a democracy nowadays and more an elected oligarcht, more akin to a King ruling surrounded by yes men, who are dependant from their boss for preferment.

It used to be that government was there to serve us, the people. Nowadays, we are here to do as we are told by the govenrment and, if we vote the "wrong" way, we are send back to the polls with out tails between our legs and a scolding and told to vote the correct way or else we will be sent to bed without any supper. And we put up with it!

Manwhile, we pay for these terribly important politicians to be driven around the countryside in chauffeur driven limosines or flown around the world in luxury jets, pampered and cosseted at our expense. In a country where some people are living in abject poverty, our Taoiseach spends thousands of our money every year on cosmetics & make up. Seriously, think about the morality of that.

Im my view, we are close to the end of this particular road, and it is without doubt tyhat very few poeple have any confidence in either the process or the politicians who emerge from the process. And thats dangerous.

SubjectSean

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

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

It isn't a question of if it works/doesn't but of if it exists/doesn't. IMO it never has existed and it never can, humans are a hierarchical mammal who fail to live up to the ideal.

DublinWriter

Democracy only works when you have accountability.

In Ireland we have the former, not the latter.

SubjectSean

jawlie wrote: »

I think if we wanted to improve the level of democracy, we would be able to do a few simple things to achieve it.

If you wanted to have democracy then by definition you would have to put executive power in the hands of the people and they are too busy playing the xbox etc. to ever want the bother. They'd much rather do it all by electing psychologically abnormal proxies on the basis of how much money this will bring them. These proxies then govern on a short term basis and are mostly about the money. In democracy the executive power of the state is left in the hands of the people. This process we have in its place with the Orwellian name of "democracy" is actually a form of hegemony underpinned by an electoral process where incompletely educated voters are bribed on a massive scale by promises of tax cuts.

Hotblack Desiato

SubjectSean wrote: »

This process we have in its place with the Orwellian name of "democracy" is actually a form of hegemony underpinned by an electoral process where incompletely educated voters are bribed on a massive scale by promises of tax cuts.

In other words, the people are idiots and don't know what's best for them / don't vote the "right" way :rolleyes: This is one step away from saying "we need a strong man in these difficult times..." and we know where that leads.

SubjectSean

ninja900 wrote: »

In other words, the people are idiots and don't know what's best for them / don't vote the "right" way :rolleyes: This is one step away from saying "we need a strong man in these difficult times..." and we know where that leads.

No, I said the people in western 'democracies' largely vote according to financial considerations. This is because they are captive to loans and mortgages. Voting to maximise their income hardly makes them idiots, it merely makes them human. It does not however alter the fact that they are bribed on a massive scale.

Pointing out that this so called 'western democracy' of ours is nothing but a hollow sham is not one step away from calling for a dictator. I don't possibly see how you can draw such a conclusion.

jawlie

ninja900 wrote: »

In other words, the people are idiots and don't know what's best for them / don't vote the "right" way :rolleyes: This is one step away from saying "we need a strong man in these difficult times..." and we know where that leads.

That was certainly what we were scolded with when we didn't vote the "right" way in the Nice treaty.

It's so easy in an debate like this to take up polarised positions and then dig in to defend the position we have taken against all arguments.

I am certain there is a growing feeling that our government is no longer accountable to us, the people. Governments used to be elected because they wanted to do things and achieve things, but nowadays governments are elected and the only thing they want to do is cling to power at virtually any cost. Rather than doing anything, they tinker at the fringes but have no real ideas.

Would this be any different if the opposition were elected? Does anyone really know how they would be any different?

SameDifference

democracy is needed in this world, although the essential idea behind democracy is idealistic and can never be completely functional in the way it was designed, much like communism.

rowlandbrowner

I think Tony Benn best summed up Democracy

"If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system."

Belfast

All political system work.
Is the results of democracy desirable compared to other political systems?

Bubs101

The main reasons that democracies work better than other systems at the moment is it practically eliminates the threat of an attack from another democracy unless one nation does something ridiculous (like Argentina in the Falklands). Otherwise, democracy has a huge failing in that governments don't try to improve the country in the long term, only until the next election.For example,if corn was an area of massive development for them , their goal is not to make a certain country the best corn producer in the world in 20 years if it means that the gains in the 4 years before the next election are relatively slow because they would run the serious risk of losing the election. Their goal will e to increase productivity in 4 years no matter how much damage it does to the land. Dictatorships have the advantage of being able to implement long term stategems without threat of being overthrown and use it to good effect (i.e. Dubai or even China)

The Corinthian

Bubs101 wrote: »

The main reasons that democracies work better than other systems at the moment is it practically eliminates the threat of an attack from another democracy unless one nation does something ridiculous (like Argentina in the Falklands).

Argentina was a military dictatorship at that time.

Otherwise, democracy has a huge failing in that governments don't try to improve the country in the long term, only until the next election.

Not always the case. Democracies will often implement long term strategies that gain cross party support - the fiscal austerity measures of the final Haughey government being an example. Given this I do see your point in that what is democratically popular will generally reflect shorter term public self-interest rather than a longer term stratagem.

Dictatorships have the advantage of being able to implement long term stategems without threat of being overthrown and use it to good effect (i.e. Dubai or even China)

Dictatorships are actually very unstable in reality, so the threat of being overthrown is very real. We can look at Castro, Saddam, Gadaffi or Franco as dictators who have held onto power for a long period, but for each one like them there have been several that have been overthrown within a few years or months. The problem also exists that once gone (even by natural causes), much of what they built tends to fall apart, as occurred with Franco and almost occurred with Stalin.

Regardless of government type, as Kissinger once said (I paraphrase as I don't have the exact quote to hand) to Nixon; "the optimum policy is one that is likely to be continued by a successive government" - and that is something that the autocratic nature of Dictators tends to be poor at.

Bubs101

The Corinthian wrote: »

Argentina was a military dictatorship at that time..

I didn't know that but if anything it just reinforces the point that being a (legitamite) democracy safeguards you from attack from the biggest military powers. It forms the basis of democratic peace theory and it seems to make sense

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not always the case. Democracies will often implement long term strategies that gain cross party support - the fiscal austerity measures of the final Haughey government being an example. Given this I do see your point in that what is democratically popular will generally reflect shorter term public self-interest rather than a longer term stratagem.

Dictatorships are actually very unstable in reality, so the threat of being overthrown is very real. We can look at Castro, Saddam, Gadaffi or Franco as dictators who have held onto power for a long period, but for each one like them there have been several that have been overthrown within a few years or months. The problem also exists that once gone (even by natural causes), much of what they built tends to fall apart, as occurred with Franco and almost occurred with Stalin.

Obviously, dictators come under alot more of a threat than any other type of leader but once they get over the volatile first few years when they have yet to cement their position they are fairly safe. I take your point about their legacy almost being instantly abolished by people as a backlash for the years of rule but that doesn't detract from the fact that doesn't mean that their life under a dictator was worse. It may seem bad but there are often legitimate circumstances such as embargos because people don't take kindly to non-democracies

EamonnKeane

artanevilla wrote: »

Democracy is only as good as the people who vote.

No, the people who stand for election. Imagin (;)) that you are a highly intelligent, well-educated, honest, compassionate person with a supreme talent for problem-solving, decision-making, negotiation and planning: would you honestly want to be a TD?

Bubs101 wrote: »

I didn't know that but if anything it just reinforces the point that being a (legitamite) democracy safeguards you from attack from the biggest military powers. It forms the basis of democratic peace theory and it seems to make sense

But isn't it those same military powers who decide whether a country is a "legitamite" democracy or not?

turgon

Democracy is only as good as the people who exercise it.

Talking about local and national issues - one of the benefits of a fully federal system would be that the national election would be about national issues only, and the provincial elections about provincial issues only. But we are never going to have a change in the system here.

Eamon Dev was very smart. Why do you think he made the president literally a puppet of the PM? The man didnt want to lose any power. In fairness there is very little Balance of Power in the Country - whoever controls the executive controls the legislature!

democrates

turgon wrote: »

Talking about local and national issues - one of the benefits of a fully federal system would be that the national election would be about national issues only, and the provincial elections about provincial issues only. But we are never going to have a change in the system here.

Up until recently I'd have agreed albeit with the never say never proviso. We are going to get a lord mayor for dublin with executive powers and some reform of local government. If this works out and local democracy works better, it paves the way for central reform, we could see a list system down the road or some such.

fictionaire

In my opinion, the core act of democracy, voting, is a re-assurance ritual. It leads people to believe they are in control. Since we don't have any full scale riots every couple of years, it works very well from a control perspective.

A good political historian will show you that policy is not altered much when one party assumes control over another after an election - the agenda steam rolls ahead regardless.

"...voters can rarely affect policy by selecting a particular candidate for office; at best, elections provide the public with an opportunity to express their opinions on the performance of past governments, but they do not provide them with an opportunity to influence the course of future events. In fact, elections chiefly serve as a symbolic excercise designed periodically to reaffirm a common belief in democracy, to give symbolic reassurances to the masses...
to put it bluntly, it may not be possible to fool all the people all of the time, but it is possible to fool many people much of the time, and in democracy, this is enough to win, maintain, and legitimize power" -- Fragile Democracy: The Use and Abuse of Power in Western Societies by Eva Etzioni-Halevy

democrates

fictionaire wrote: »

In my opinion, the core act of democracy, voting, is a re-assurance ritual. It leads people to believe they are in control. Since we don't have any full scale riots every couple of years, it works very well from a control perspective.

A good political historian will show you that policy is not altered much when one party assumes control over another after an election - the agenda steam rolls ahead regardless.

That's fair comment on representative democracy I agree.

Of course direct democracy is pure democracy, but for practicality you need a balance of the two, furthermore, the Swiss system has too much devolution in my book, and if you consider that Mormon branch in the US with child brides etc. it's clear why going too far with autonomy is ill advised.