Is democracy a wrong idea?

[juvenissun]

Human has thousands of years recorded history. And the idea of democracy also has a few thousands of years history. But a democratic political system was not realized in the past few thousands of years until recent. Even today, more than half of the nations in the world are still not fully democratic.

Is the democracy a wrong idea? Is the idea not humane? If not, why is the idea so hard to be implemented?

 

[juvenissun]

Human has thousands of years recorded history. And the idea of democracy also has a few thousands of years history. But a democratic political system was not realized in the past few thousands of years until recent. Even today, more than half of the nations in the world are still not fully democratic.

Is the democracy a wrong idea? Is the idea not humane? If not, why is the idea so hard to be implemented?

(Bump the thread up to give it another chance.)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

A full blown democracy is alway a bad idea. This why the US is a republic in which, we elect representatives to create the laws that are for the protection of individual liberties. The representatives are elected using a democratic process but our government is not a pure democracy in its most basic definition. Thankfully.

 

[juvenissun]

A full blown democracy is alway a bad idea. This why the US is a republic in which, we elect representatives to create the laws that are for the protection of individual liberties. The representatives are elected using a democratic process but our government is not a pure democracy in its most basic definition. Thankfully.

The actual function of a democratic political system is not the intended question. The basic idea may be illustrated by the term "human right". We have equal human right. One way to express it is the system of one person, one vote. That is what I mean by democracy. Are you saying it is bad?

Again, the main question is: if one-person-one-vote is a good (desirable) idea, then why is it so difficult to become a key part in a political system?

 

[contango]

The trouble with "one person, one vote" is that it makes no distinction between the informed voter and the uninformed voter. To take the 2008 US presidential election as an example the person who spent time considering the social and economic policies of Barack Obama and John McCain, considered the relative merits of the Republican and Democrat platforms and then decided which they believed to be better for the country would carry no more weight than the person who voted because they figured it was time the country had a black president or because they didn't want a black man in the White House.

Another trouble with a universal vote is that it provides a means for people to vote themselves the fruits of another's labour. If I rob Peter to pay Paul I can be sure of Paul's support. Substitute the word "rob" for "tax" and you've got a perfect reason why net recipients of government funds should be ineligible to vote.

Yet another trouble is the so-called "tyranny of the majority". Put another way democracy can be likened to two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for lunch.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Human has thousands of years recorded history. And the idea of democracy also has a few thousands of years history. But a democratic political system was not realized in the past few thousands of years until recent. Even today, more than half of the nations in the world are still not fully democratic.

Is the democracy a wrong idea? Is the idea not humane? If not, why is the idea so hard to be implemented?

I think its difficult to implement because all too often other belief systems that aren't conducive to democracy stand in the way. That said, here's what I think of democracy itself....

The main problem with democracy, as I see it, is that it creates a system that isn't necessarily concerned with the best interests of the group. Instead, it encourages everyone to focus on their own best interests and tries to create the notion that whatever the majority agrees upon, it is the best interest of the group. This often isn't the case.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

IMHO the reason why democracy is so hard to implement is because it is the nature of mankind to oppress his fellow man. In dctatorships and kingdoms the king or dictator is the sole ruler, owns everything, controls everything and has absolute power. Mankind likes that idea. Even here in America, we have that kind of mentality, but, the vote controls it to a certain extent. A wise man once said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But absolute power is what dictators and kings crave. So, imho that is why more places are not keen on implementing democracy.

 

[Ripheus27]

Again, the main question is: if one-person-one-vote is a good (desirable) idea, then why is it so difficult to become a key part in a political system?

One problem is that, like many seemingly simple functions, voting involves vast complexities once analyzed enough. The article Voting Methods (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) provides a good overview of these.

 

[jayem]

Again, the main question is: if one-person-one-vote is a good (desirable) idea, then why is it so difficult to become a key part in a political system?

Why do you say that democratic voting is difficult to achieve? In what way do you think it is so difficult?

 

[juvenissun]

The trouble with "one person, one vote" is that it makes no distinction between the informed voter and the uninformed voter. To take the 2008 US presidential election as an example the person who spent time considering the social and economic policies of Barack Obama and John McCain, considered the relative merits of the Republican and Democrat platforms and then decided which they believed to be better for the country would carry no more weight than the person who voted because they figured it was time the country had a black president or because they didn't want a black man in the White House.

Another trouble with a universal vote is that it provides a means for people to vote themselves the fruits of another's labour. If I rob Peter to pay Paul I can be sure of Paul's support. Substitute the word "rob" for "tax" and you've got a perfect reason why net recipients of government funds should be ineligible to vote.

Yet another trouble is the so-called "tyranny of the majority". Put another way democracy can be likened to two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for lunch.

Did historical people know these problems? Assume they did, then are these the very reasons that democracy never become a political reality until recent?

 

[juvenissun]

I think its difficult to implement because all too often other belief systems that aren't conducive to democracy stand in the way. That said, here's what I think of democracy itself....

The main problem with democracy, as I see it, is that it creates a system that isn't necessarily concerned with the best interests of the group. Instead, it encourages everyone to focus on their own best interests and tries to create the notion that whatever the majority agrees upon, it is the best interest of the group. This often isn't the case.

So are you suggesting that some (several) other social-political systems are "better" than democracy?

 

[juvenissun]

Why do you say that democratic voting is difficult to achieve? In what way do you think it is so difficult?

Because the voting for a national leader (or any other decisions) does not even work today at many places of the world. History suggests that voting is never considered a good idea worldwide.

What is a better action for democracy other than vote?

 

[yasic]

If a true democracy is every achieved then it will be simply voted out of existence by the system the majority group in the community best benefits from.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I wouldn't think that democracy is any more wrong than any other form of government. All government depends on the willingness of the governed to be governed. If enough of the governed decide that they will not be governed in the way in which they have been, then the present government, of whatever political entity we care to examine, will fail ( there are numerous ways in which this manifests itself depending on the system of government, the personality of the governed and the mood of those unwilling to remain governed by the present government. ). No governing system is immune from corruption and a corrupt government, not the system by which the government is designed to function, is what causes oppression among its citizens. So as long as those in power within a government remain steadfast in executing their duties as they are theoretically supposed to, under the particular system of government that those officials are empowered by, there is little wrong about it. Even a dictator or an absolute monarch could, if one could be found that would behave in such a way as to put the interests of the individuals governed under their autocratic system above those of their own self and group of supporters ,be just as fair and equitable a government as any democratic system.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So are you suggesting that some (several) other social-political systems are "better" than democracy?

Yea.

 

[yasic]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried" -Churchill

 

[grasping the after wind]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried" -Churchill

I do like this quote. Churchill was a wonderful wordsmith.

 

[juvenissun]

OK, If democracy is not as good as it sounds, then why does it start to prevail in some nations in the past few hundred years after thousands of years non-democratic environment?

Just look at one symptom of democracy: king or emperor disappeared and people started to vote for their national leaders. Why didn't this happen, say, 1000 years ago anywhere in the world?

 

[Mediaeval]

Churchill also said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

1000 years ago there was the Icelandic Commonwealth (A.D. 930–1262), "a uniquely democratic structure about which historians continue to speculate today" (wikipedia).

 

[Ripheus27]

OK, If democracy is not as good as it sounds, then why does it start to prevail in some nations in the past few hundred years after thousands of years non-democratic environment?

Just look at one symptom of democracy: king or emperor disappeared and people started to vote for their national leaders. Why didn't this happen, say, 1000 years ago anywhere in the world?

Because the world is slowly, if at all in the long run, getting from worse to better. Most countries, perhaps, throughout history have viewed genocide as an acceptable course of conduct. Are to we therefore condemn the movement to abolish genocide?