the word democracy and the world

BlitzKrieg

As a jibe towards the american political system one of my lecturers constantly (and accuratly) refers to the simple fact that the word Democracy does not exist in the american constitution.


Curious by this trvial fact i researched a few other constitutions and found that the word democracy is:


Not in the Irish constitution
Not in the Japanese constitution
Not in the American Constitution
Not in the German Constitution
Not in the Australian Constitution

But

I have found it in the:

French Constitution
USSR Constitution
East Timor Constitution
*New* draft of Afganastan constitution


here's my source: http://www.constitution.org/cons/natlcons.htm


i find this very interesting that the western world which harps on about how democracy was built into its very system has only 1 nation (of what i could find) that even has the word democracy in its constitution.

This is not an attack on those nations (ireland is one of them) i just find it as a fun political trivia piece to say.


But the question at hand now is how important is the word democracy?

aidan_walsh

America is not a democracy. Neither are Ireland, Japan, Germany or Austrailia for that matter. Democracy requires all people to have an equal say in all matters, something that at a national level would be a disaster to try to use.

Instead, we use a fun little system called Democratic Republic (also known as a Representitive Democracy, see the subtle difference?), whereby we have a say in who speaks for us.

BlitzKrieg

meh its just a fun little trivia thing i use to scare people, i know its nothing to be really scared of, i'm more curious about the overuse of the word of democracy as a justification, and i was using the little constitution thing as an example.

but maybe you could help me with an inquiry.


how many nations have successfully encoperated a democratic system established by another nation? What i mean is the democratic states set up post world war 1 by president wilson and the league of nations (wiemer, poland etc) all in one way or another collapsed, has any such state established (democracy from outside the nation) ever survived?

fragile

Article 5

Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.

I would interpret that as meaning democracy, of course whether our democratically elected representatives interpret it the same way is open to argument...

I think the following needs to be updated though

9. The President shall not leave the State during his term of office save with the consent of the Government.

Did they not think a woman could be elected to do the job

Stabshauptmann

doodle_sketch wrote:

America is not a democracy. Neither are Ireland, Japan, Germany or Austrailia for that matter. Democracy requires all people to have an equal say in all matters, something that at a national level would be a disaster to try to use.

Instead, we use a fun little system called Democratic Republic (also known as a Representitive Democracy, see the subtle difference?), whereby we have a say in who speaks for us.

I think you are using an overly narrow interpretation of the word, one I disagree with.
A democracy according to dictionary.com :rolleyes: is

1)Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2)A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
3)The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


and a republic is
A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them

Stabshauptmann

fragile wrote:

I would interpret that as meaning democracy, of course whether our democratically elected representatives interpret it the same way is open to argument...

I think the following needs to be updated though



Did they not think a woman could be elected to do the job

1939 amendments act

when ever you see a masculine pronoun in law it refers to both men and women

bonkey

doodle_sketch wrote:

America is not a democracy. Neither are Ireland, Japan, Germany or Austrailia for that matter. Democracy requires all people to have an equal say in all matters, something that at a national level would be a disaster to try to use.

So what you're saying is that democracy doesn't actually exist?

Surely, if thats the case, then we should take the intended meaning from its common usage and not its purist one?

jc

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote:

but maybe you could help me with an inquiry.


how many nations have successfully encoperated a democratic system established by another nation? What i mean is the democratic states set up post world war 1 by president wilson and the league of nations (wiemer, poland etc) all in one way or another collapsed, has any such state established (democracy from outside the nation) ever survived?

What about Japan after WW2?

(West) Germany after WW2 might be an example of specific actions to restore democracy during occupation.

Was the Weimar democracy systematically engineered by another state? I thought it was instigated by elements within Germany.

MorningStar

It is kind of interesting point. I always want to question why is democracy so important? Do you really need to have every persons' view considered to have the best environment for all? I mean you could have a democratic country where everybody has the same beliefs as the KKK. A dictator could be in control and make everybody have effectively equal rights no matter who objected.
If you look at the French system because it is so democratic when one party have control the change the laws back from what the last party did. It's not that polar but it's not that far off.

SkepticOne

MorningStar wrote:

A dictator could be in control and make everybody have effectively equal rights no matter who objected.

Surely one of the problems with democracy is that people tend to vote themselves equal rights. But why should the weak have the same rights as the strong? Isn't the notion of equal rights an overturning of the natural order. This is one of the things a dictator could remedy very quickly.

Goodshape

SkepticOne wrote:

But why should the weak have the same rights as the strong?

Because 'the weak' must also live in this world.

And who's to decide weak from strong? I find your argument lacking, does this make you intellectually inferior? Perhaps you should not be allowed to access the Internet in future. As a superior being, it is my right to deny you this. (?)

Moving swiftly along... while I don't pretend to have the answers, I dislike the idea of 'representative' democracy. The idea of having a ruler, whether elected by popular majority or not, encourages a level of apathy I think we could do without. It's strikes me as a bit of an archaic governing system to be honest and the sooner things change the better.

DadaKopf

Whether democracy is explicitly mentioned or not is much less important than a constitution establishing democratic procedures of government.

Since there are so many interpretations of the term 'democracy', what's important in any constitution isn't whether the word is used but how the functions of state are established, especially the balace of power among the four branches of government and, of course, between the state and society and the basic procedures to maintain that balance implicitly throughout the whole document.

The Irish Constitution does establish Ireland as a democratic state (Articles 4 & 28A). Other important clauses:

2. 1° The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people.

2° Every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at an election for President.

3° The voting shall be by secret ballot and on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.

1. 1° The National Parliament shall be called and known, and is in this Constitution generally referred to, as the Oireachtas.

2° The Oireachtas shall consist of the President and two Houses, viz.: a House of Representatives to be called Dáil Éireann and a Senate to be called Seanad Éireann.

Article 16

1. 1° Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of twenty-one years, and who is not placed under disability or incapacity by this Constitution or by law, shall be eligible for membership of Dáil Éireann.

2° i All citizens, and

ii such other persons in the State as may be determined by law,

without distinction of sex who have reached the age of eighteen years who are not disqualified by law and comply with the provisions of the law relating to the election of members of Dáil Éireann, shall have the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann.

3° No law shall be enacted placing any citizen under disability or incapacity for membership of Dáil Éireann on the ground of sex or disqualifying any citizen or other person from voting at an election for members of Dáil Éireann on that ground.

4° No voter may exercise more than one vote at an election for Dáil Éireann, and the voting shall be by secret ballot.

4. 1° The elected members of Seanad Éireann shall be elected as follows:—

i Three shall be elected by the National University of Ireland.

ii Three shall be elected by the University of Dublin.

iii Forty-three shall be elected from panels of candidates constituted as hereinafter provided.

rticle 26

This Article applies to any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas other than a Money Bill, or a Bill expressed to be a Bill containing a proposal to amend the Constitution, or a Bill the time for the consideration of which by Seanad Éireann shall have been abridged under Article 24 of this Constitution.

1. 1° The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, refer any Bill to which this Article applies to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question as to whether such Bill or any specified provision or provisions of such Bill is or are repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof.

Article 28

1. The Government shall consist of not less than seven and not more than fifteen members who shall be appointed by the President in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

2. The executive power of the State shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, be exercised by or on the authority of the Government.

And so on... you get the idea.

Sometimes I think constitutions that make a big deal out of democracy aren't really into the idea.

MorningStar

SkepticOne wrote:

Surely one of the problems with democracy is that people tend to vote themselves equal rights. But why should the weak have the same rights as the strong? Isn't the notion of equal rights an overturning of the natural order. This is one of the things a dictator could remedy very quickly.

That's my point. Does a democratic society really produce a better quality of life for all?
Is the government there to serve the peoples' will or to lead them? Irish politicians just seem to constantly bow to public preasure rather than do what is best. The smoking ban maybe one exception but I have always belived this is just a way to save the government from being sued in the future for not protecting the people in employment. Ironically by allowing smoking in prisons may lead them to being sued

Capt'n Midnight

It's a very overused and abused word , whatever you might say about the GDR,

Ireland continued to recognise Democratic Kampuchea for quite a long time despite a history of disenfranchisation of people who would vote against them. Basically the remnants of the "old society" - the educated, schoolteachers, the wealthy, Buddhist monks, police, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and former government officials. (Educated in many cases meant speaking French or wearing glasses.) Depending on who you believe up to 32% of potential voters were disenfranchised permenantly.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0121/S.0121.198811090005.html
http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0121/S.0121.198811160004.html

Capt'n Midnight

SkepticOne wrote:

But why should the weak have the same rights as the strong?
...
This is one of the things a dictator could remedy very quickly.

Otherwise the strong grow stronger at the expense of the weak , eventually leading to a monoploy of power and resources, look at all the dictatorships in Europe in the 30's and 40's (and later in Iberia / Albania / Yugoslavia etc.) and those in South America. Also true democracies tend to have better civil rights, and are less likely to wage war, the USA being a major exception but then again there there is a monopoly of power - you alternate between the minor differences of two right wing parties.

The greeks were right about a benovalent dictatorship being the best form of government but dictators arent usually benovalent.

SkepticOne

MorningStar wrote:

That's my point. Does a democratic society really produce a better quality of life for all?
Is the government there to serve the peoples' will or to lead them?

It is a combination (in theory at least) of serving and ruling.

It is both, imo. At least in theory

Irish politicians just seem to constantly bow to public preasure rather than do what is best.

The smoking ban maybe one exception but I have always belived this is just a way to save the government from being sued in the future for not protecting the people in employment. Ironically by allowing smoking in prisons may lead them to being sued

The smoking ban is probably not a good example since it was actually a fairly popular move.

I would agree that democracy tends to lead to popular decisions being made even if they are not the wisest. Sometimes an unpopular decision will be made in the hopes that the correctness of it will be seen by election time.

But at least the interests of voters will be considered in some way when decisions are to be made. This provides some safety from the sort of decisions dictators have been known to make.

bonkey

MorningStar wrote:

A dictator could be in control and make everybody have effectively equal rights no matter who objected.

Err....a dictator could make everybody else have equal rights.

If you look at the French system because it is so democratic when one party have control the change the laws back from what the last party did. It's not that polar but it's not that far off.

Is it "so democratic" ??? Is it any more democratic than the Irish system?

On another note....many people hold the Swiss system up as the bastion of good democracy. Did you know that they still don't have legally-mandated "proper" maternal leave here...and recently (unless I'm mis-remembering the result) defeated a proposal to introduce it.

Democracy has its flaws, undoubtedly....but no-ones come up with a better system that I've seen. A benevolent dictatorship is theoretically the best thing for the people....but when it comes time for a new dictator...without any say, how can teh people be sure someone truly benevolent will be chosen (and will remain benevolent).

jc

DadaKopf

Is the government there to serve the peoples' will or to lead them?

It's both. If democracy is about people ruling themselves, and politics is about effective leadership, mainstream democracy is predominantly about electorates selecting political organisations who select leaders. Elections give politicians legitimacy to act the way they want, and, theoretically, make them responsive to public opinion as it places limits on their own power. Governments in Western representative democracies are always in a double-bind: they're in the business of leading and following. In a way, it's up to the power of the state and the countervailing power of civil society that influences the balance between the two.

That's the most popular picture of democracy.

On the other hand, you could see it as a restricted form of democracy where the general public's only role in democratic life is to vote in, and sometimes vote out, elite social groups. In this sense, civil society perpetually buys into a system that prefers stability over participation. The only other option isorganised political opinion, but politicians are brilliant at not listening to people they don't like.

Does a democratic society really produce a better quality of life for all?

Compared to alternatives like dictatorships and absolute monarchies, I'd definitely say it's the least worst form of government. But whether prevailing Western forms of representative government are the least worst, I'm not so sure. Sometimes I think their relative stability misleads people about the ways they actually function as democracies.

WHEELER4

I would like to reply to Blitzkreig. He is right that the word "democracy" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers hated democracy as the worst form of government.

In Classical Antiquity, no one really liked that form of government except the commercial classes and of course Athens.

A republic is very different from democracy and a "democratic republic" is actually an oxymoron.

The proper definition of a republic is here Classical republic

MorningStar

bonkey wrote:

Err....a dictator could make everybody else have equal rights.

That's why I said "effectively".

bonkey wrote:

Is it "so democratic" ??? Is it any more democratic than the Irish system?

They have parties that actually oppose each other on more fundimentals than here. As far as I can see our main parties are pretty much the same in principle.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Otherwise the strong grow stronger at the expense of the weak , eventually leading to a monoploy of power and resources,

If you don't think the strong have power now you are mad. Think of the €4.5k wanted to talk to memember of a political party. Don't the poorer end up in prison that means they loose their vote too?

WHEELER4 wrote:

A republic is very different from democracy and a "democratic republic" is actually an oxymoron.

Well put and thanks for the link really helpful.

As far as I know it is illeagal in Ireland for more than 6 people togather in a group and chant,shout or sing on the streets without a permit. Doesn't sound much like a freedom of speech which is often associated with the purpose of a republic or democracy.

The funny thing is Ireland got it's first democracy from the occupying English which has got to stick in the throat of many nationalists.

bonkey

MorningStar wrote:

That's why I said "effectively".

OK...we'll just have to disagree on that one.

Given 1,000,000 penniless peopel and Bill Gates, I wouldn't say they are effectively all just as broke as each other, because one person is so glaringly not in the same bracket as everyone else. Same for a dictator and his dictatees, and monarch and their subjects, and so on....

They have parties that actually oppose each other on more fundimentals than here. As far as I can see our main parties are pretty much the same in principle.

But does that make it more democratic?

It means that either there's more choice for the public, or that the public are more diverse in what they choose to vote for, but I don't think that makes the system more or less democratic.

jc

WHEELER4

All democracies descend into an Ochlocracy; mob rule.

Here in America, popular government is about giving the people handouts from the government in order to have the people vote for you. In a sense, a politician like George Bush (the first) says, Vote for me because I will give federal aid to education. In the American constitution, it does not grant the federal government any propriatory jurisdiction over education. It is for the States. But now, in order to buy votes, George Bush (the first) says "I'm the education president". So all the soccer moms voted for him.

This man took an oath to support and UPHOLD the constitution. What he did was undermine it. And the people forced him to because the "herd" doesn't want to obey the consitution, it wants "goodies" from the state.

George Bush (the second) is no different. Prescription drug healthcare is not a Federal government perogative. It was just another "goodie" to pass out to the people in order to get senior citizens, (the largest voting bloc) to vote for him.

Essentially, the constitution is dead in America.