Democracy or Something Like It

from JoeUser Forums
A recent discussion on Bakerstreet's blog made me think about what exactly I think a democracy is. His opinion seemed fairly clear - that which claims to be a democracy is a democracy so long as it has elected representatives.

I may be oversimplifying his belief, but that's the impression I got. If I got it wrong, I'll change what I've put above. Read what he has to say here: Link

I don't agree though. The last century has shown that some of the least democratic governments the world has seen had regular elections, including that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the Ayatollah's Iran, Pinochet's Chile and others. I feel that to lump countries like the US, Britain, Germany and East Timor in with fairly blatant dictatorships like the above is to cheapen democracy far too much.

So what, then, are the requirements for a democracy?

The most important is the involvement of the people in important decisions, which in the modern world primarily takes place through the election of representatives. These representatives are, in classical terms, the physical embodiment of their constituents' will, and therefore act with the full authority of their voter bases. In practical terms they wield the voting power of a set number of citizens, usually a group organised on geographical lines rather than than on the basis of any other common identity. Both major democratic systems use this as the basis of their governance - the westminster and the republic models.

But a democracy is more than this. After all, any two-bit dictator can bring together some candidates and have them voted in, through force of arms if necessary. Something else is needed.

The representatives must be entirely free to propose and debate new legislation without threat of physical or economic sanctions. Laws should be enacted without threats guiding the voting patterns of the representatives. Instead the representatives should be free to vote on the basis of their constituents' desires and needs.

Where representatives are not free to manifest the will of their people on the political stage, there can be no democracy, because the people do not have a voice of any kind.

Of course, in most modern democracies political power is wielded through a party structure. Nowhere is this more evident than in the westminster system. Political parties rule through simply majorities in the houses of parliament. Their rule, however, is democratic. The party received a majority of the votes in the a majority of the seats, and can therefore be said to be represent the will of a majority of the people (most westminster style seats have identical numbers of constituents).

Democracy, however, is not a digital reality. It's analogue - some countries are more democratic than others, and none are without undemocratic elements.

When, however, the undemocratic elements - powerbases outside the legal boundaries of the state but inside the geographical borders, widespread bribery and corruption of representatives, the rigging of elections, 'guaranteed' seats in parliaments etc - outweigh the democratic elements or the democratic elements no longer exist in practice, the state cannot be considered a democracy.

For example if the influence of the official state extends only to the borders of its capital, and beyond said border there is only the authority of non-state actors (bandits, warlords, etc) the state only exists within the borders of the capital in a democratic sense. The rest of the country is not democratic because the warlords and the bandits do not belong to the state. They are outside it and they ignore it. A democratic state can only exist in a society where the rule of law is strong, because democracy is based upon that principle.
politics
5,858 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"It's analogue - some countries are more democratic than others, and none are without undemocratic elements."


Then you have to agree upon how many of these elements have to be present for it to be disallowed as a Democracy. Given your standard, the US is on shaky ground. Anyone willing to accept the reality of politics knows that those who govern our legislature are far, far more often concerned with the will of their political donors and lobbyists and party cronies than the people who live in the areas they represent.

By the very argument you propose here, I don't believe you can deny Afghanistan the status of a Democratic country, if you allow many first world nations the title. I believe devoutly that the will of the average Afghani is as important to Afghani legislators as it ours is to American legislators.

"The representatives must be entirely free to propose and debate new legislation without threat of physical or economic sanctions. Laws should be enacted without threats guiding the voting patterns of the representatives. Instead the representatives should be free to vote on the basis of their constituents' desires and needs."


While I disagree with all the riders you impose on Democracy, I agree with this. That's why I think if the will of the Afghani people to adopt some aspects of Sharia law is overturned by the US, then what we have done is DENIED them Democracy.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
"For example if the influence of the official state extends only to the borders of its capital, and beyond said border there is only the authority of non-state actors (bandits, warlords, etc) the state only exists within the borders of the capital in a democratic sense. The rest of the country is not democratic because the warlords and the bandits do not belong to the state. They are outside it and they ignore it. A democratic state can only exist in a society where the rule of law is strong, because democracy is based upon that principle."


You are basically saying that a nation is either a perfect Democracy, or no Democracy at all. There have been many times in US history that we have had lawless and rebellious segments of our geography. We've espoused slavery, genocide, etc. Is it pointless, then? Should we have allowed, say, England to come in and fix it all for us? Would that have been a better means of "self rule"?

To me, when you degrade the efforts of people TRYING to attain a more effective Democracy, you lend to the arguments of people who claim they shouldn't bother with Democracy at all. They believe that adopting Democratic government isn't really self rule, it is having western ideals imposed on them. Frankly, you prove them correct.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then you have to agree upon how many of these elements have to be present for it to be disallowed as a Democracy. Given your standard, the US is on shaky ground. Anyone willing to accept the reality of politics knows that those who govern our legislature are far, far more often concerned with the will of their political donors and lobbyists and party cronies than the people who live in the areas they represent.


I don't feel qualified to speak on the state of democracy in the US. If it's truly so bad as you say then perhaps democracy is dead in the US. Certainly if representatives in general are no longer public servants for their constituents then you're in trouble. But if the voter turnout is high and a majority of the citizenry are happy with the level of service their government provides then democracy isn't dead. Your system's complicated though because too many people think the president runs the country, so it's hard for me to gauge it. And I have to admit the way many US reps are elected unopposed strikes me as very odd, but each to their own.

In Australia, for example, the government enjoys an extremely good popularity rating, and, despite its current position of total power, the way it wields said power hasn't been so excessive as to disillusion many voters. After all wasted ballots (which could suggest disillusionment with the system) and the payment of fines for not voting don't count for much more than 2% of the voter base, which suggests at least a reasonable amount of approval for the system.

While I disagree with all the riders you impose on Democracy, I agree with this. That's why I think if the will of the Afghani people to adopt some aspects of Sharia law is overturned by the US, then what we have done is DENIED then Democracy.


Basically everything else I wrote was just window-dressing on this one point and an attempt to explain what I meant by it with some particular examples. And I agree with your conclusion. Certainly the available news from Afghanistan suggests that Sharia is very popular in Kabul. But I do wonder if it's equally popular in the mountains. I mean, it's possible it is, but Afghanistan as an entity doesn't seem to exist up there; can a failed state ever truly be called representative?

I would say no, but then if you disagree then I guess we're not going to find much middle ground here either.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are basically saying that a nation is either a perfect Democracy, or no Democracy at all. There have been many times in US history that we have had lawless and rebellious segments of our geography. We've espoused slavery, genocide, etc. Is it pointless, then? Should we have allowed, say, England to come in and fix it all for us? Would that have been a better means of "self rule"?


Not quite. I just feel that a democracy only exists so far as the influence of the democracy extends. Elsewhere may as well be another country for all the effect the central, democratic commands have. The existence of democracy is not simply a matter of 'find the country on the map, weigh up the figures' so much as 'find the country on the map, find the places where the law of the democracy is supreme and then weigh up the figures'. If it helps rule of law is kind of like an oil spill on a country. In some states it extends all the way to the very borders. In others it can be found in most spots, the remainder of the state being lawless. In others still it's barely a single dot and the majority of the claimed territory is without democracy.

The empty space which democracy doesn't control may consider itself the same country as the democratic parts, but because the state doesn't exist there the links are largely social or economic ties rather than political.

I hope what I mean is clear.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually what I've just said extends to any state-based government, including tyranny and aristocracy. There is only a central state so far as it has the power to project its influence. Outside that influence the state is lawless and often lacks the cohesiveness of the centre.



To me, when you degrade the efforts of people TRYING to attain a more effective Democracy, you lend to the arguments of people who claim they shouldn't bother with Democracy at all. They believe that adopting Democratic government isn't really self rule, it is having western ideals imposed on them. Frankly, you prove them correct.




Eh, maybe. I think those involved in the democratisation process would admit that democracy doesn't happen just because they have a constitution and some elected bodies. In the words of everyone's favourite advertising campaign, it won't happen overnight, but it will happen. If by being honest about it the bad guys get ammunition then so be it. Better to be honest from the start than lie about instant democracy and turn the people against the concept forever.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually you added the qualifier that jumped out at me when you started listing dictatorships with democracies.  The "Free" election of individuals (although you did put free into the qualifier for the legislators).

And there is another slight error.  The Westminster system is not a majority rule as neither of the 3 largest ones using that system at this time have a party that actually received a majority of votes, just a plurality. 

But the popularity of the Australian government over the American one has to do with the biggest difference between the 2.  In the Westminster system, the party winning the most seats rules.  While we have elections for seats and then for a ruler.  So they can (and often are) of different parties which leads to bickering and thus low esteem in the public's eyes (but gratitude to the people who beleive that the best government is the one that governs least).

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I always thought that the USA was a Republic Not a Democracy...?????
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually you added the qualifier that jumped out at me when you started listing dictatorships with democracies. The "Free" election of individuals (although you did put free into the qualifier for the legislators).


I don't know what that means. What do you want to say?

And there is another slight error. The Westminster system is not a majority rule as neither of the 3 largest ones using that system at this time have a party that actually received a majority of votes, just a plurality.


They received a majority of votes in a majority of seats. Not a majority in the strictest sense, but close enough I reckon.

But the popularity of the Australian government over the American one has to do with the biggest difference between the 2. In the Westminster system, the party winning the most seats rules. While we have elections for seats and then for a ruler. So they can (and often are) of different parties which leads to bickering and thus low esteem in the public's eyes (but gratitude to the people who beleive that the best government is the one that governs least).


It's fairly common for westminster governments to have a majority in the lower house but a minority in the upper house, which can cripple the government. Don't assume the westminster guys have it easy just because at this moment Howard has both upper and lower houses under his control. It's extremely rare.

I always thought that the USA was a Republic Not a Democracy...?????


Yeah, but it's democratic in a similar way to the westminster model of constitutional monarchy. The two (republic and westminster) are roughly comparable in most ways to every commonly accepted democracy in the world. It's convenient to use the term democracy to describe them, even if by classical greek terms neither is a democracy.