Is democracy a wrong idea?

[juvenissun]

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?

But the idea of democracy is not new. The concept was understood at least 3000 years ago. Occasionally and briefly, some degree of democracy was also facilitated somewhere. However, they did not last, and no real fruit of democracy could appear until recent.

I don't think this situation should be described by the word "slow".

I speculate that something brought forward by the Industrial Revolution facilitated the background condition for a democratic society. However, I can not specify what they are.

 

[grasping the after wind]

But the idea of democracy is not new. The concept was understood at least 3000 years ago. Occasionally and briefly, some degree of democracy was also facilitated somewhere. However, they did not last, and no real fruit of democracy could appear until recent.

I don't think this situation should be described by the word "slow".

I speculate that something brought forward by the Industrial Revolution facilitated the background condition for a democratic society. However, I can not specify what they are.

I think you may have it backward and something about a more democratic, less autocratic , more individualistic and unfettered society( one where most opinions are tolerated and new ideas are not looked upon as a threat to the ruling elite) inspires innovation which leads to such things as the Industrial Revolution. Subsequently the nations falling behind economically seek to catch up by imitating the form of government that has enabled this to occur. As for the world slowly improving , history shows that the world undergoes changes some for the better and some for the worse but nothing approximating the idea of a steady improvement. Rather, the human condition fluctuates between times of relative freedom to times of relative oppression and back again. We in the western world seem to be entering a time of less freedom and more oppression and exiting a time of more freedom and less oppression but this was to be expected as it is a cycle that has been repeated throughout civilized times. There certainly is no evidence to suggest that humanity has ever embarked upon any sort of inevitable upward course and that idea is merely an egocentric pipedream of each generation which sees itself as somehow more enlightened than the previous ones, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Invariably the people of any particular generation will consider their own biases and prejudices to be superior to those of the past and all past history as merely a prologue , important only as it relates to the steady but slow progression which has now culminated in their own highly enlightened and superior sensibilities.

 

[jayem]

I speculate that something brought forward by the Industrial Revolution facilitated the background condition for a democratic society. However, I can not specify what they are.

It was somewhat earlier than that. In western Europe at least, the intellectual foundation was laid in the Enlightenment. And one of its basic tenets was challenging the authority of religion. In fact, I think there is a linear relationship between the rise of western democratic government, and the fall of the RCC as a political power.

 

[keith99]

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 in the confusion following the end of a line of kings somene else would grab power. Either from within or from without.

From a practicle perspective anything even vaguely resembling modern democarcy was all but impossible until about 100 years ago. Yes 100, not 200. There is a historical reason for the electoral college.

 

[juvenissun]

Because in the confusion following the end of a line of kings somene else would grab power. Either from within or from without.

From a practicle perspective anything even vaguely resembling modern democarcy was all but impossible until about 100 years ago. Yes 100, not 200. There is a historical reason for the electoral college.

And, what is that?

 

[juvenissun]

It was somewhat earlier than that. In western Europe at least, the intellectual foundation was laid in the Enlightenment. And one of its basic tenets was challenging the authority of religion. In fact, I think there is a linear relationship between the rise of western democratic government, and the fall of the RCC as a political power.

That might be true in the western civilization.

But the religious environment in the east is entirely different, yet the idea of democracy was not taken off until about 100 years ago.

Is there a more common common-factor for the extreme delayed emergence of democratic system worldwide?

 

[juvenissun]

I think you may have it backward and something about a more democratic, less autocratic , more individualistic and unfettered society( one where most opinions are tolerated and new ideas are not looked upon as a threat to the ruling elite) inspires innovation which leads to such things as the Industrial Revolution. Subsequently the nations falling behind economically seek to catch up by imitating the form of government that has enabled this to occur. As for the world slowly improving , history shows that the world undergoes changes some for the better and some for the worse but nothing approximating the idea of a steady improvement. Rather, the human condition fluctuates between times of relative freedom to times of relative oppression and back again. We in the western world seem to be entering a time of less freedom and more oppression and exiting a time of more freedom and less oppression but this was to be expected as it is a cycle that has been repeated throughout civilized times. There certainly is no evidence to suggest that humanity has ever embarked upon any sort of inevitable upward course and that idea is merely an egocentric pipedream of each generation which sees itself as somehow more enlightened than the previous ones, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Invariably the people of any particular generation will consider their own biases and prejudices to be superior to those of the past and all past history as merely a prologue , important only as it relates to the steady but slow progression which has now culminated in their own highly enlightened and superior sensibilities.

I always think the Industrial Revolution was promoted by the advance of technology, rather than by the emergence of democracy. I might get it reversed, but I am not convinced.

There is still no democracy in China today. What is in the mind of Chinese people on this situation? Their leaders say: the western style of democracy is Not Good to the Chinese society. How much truth is in there?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I always think the Industrial Revolution was promoted by the advance of technology, rather than by the emergence of democracy. I might get it reversed, but I am not convinced.

The quickened pace to the advance of technology was a byproduct of the emergence of the less autocratic state.

There is still no democracy in China today. What is in the mind of Chinese people on this situation? Their leaders say: the western style of democracy is Not Good to the Chinese society. How much truth is in there?

I will not attempt to read the mind of the Chinese people. All leaders want to retain their power and expand it if possible so their words cannot be taken without some skepticism. Not being in China or even familiar with the current cultural values of the average Chinese person, I do not feel qualified to answer the question. Perhaps someone else with more knowledge might volunteer.

 

[contango]

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

Did historical people have what we'd call a democracy today?

It wasn't all that long ago that large classes of people were considered unworthy of a vote. People like women, non-whites etc - all denied the vote. Then before there was such a thing as a government welfare state there was no issue of taxing Peter to pay Paul so that wasn't a problem either.

 

[keith99]

And, what is that?

Even the Telegraph was not invented until 1844. For anything resembling a democracy, even a representitive democracy, there need to a flow of inforamtion in both directions. Candidates explaining what they think the important issues are and the votes being tallied.

Just counting the votes in a timely manner would have been a significant problem 200 years ago. But getting a clear message outto the voters was all but imposible, at least in anything resembling a timely manner, 200 years ago.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Even the Telegraph was not invented until 1844. For anything resembling a democracy, even a representitive democracy, there need to a flow of inforamtion in both directions. Candidates explaining what they think the important issues are and the votes being tallied.

Just counting the votes in a timely manner would have been a significant problem 200 years ago. But getting a clear message outto the voters was all but imposible, at least in anything resembling a timely manner, 200 years ago.

That is true if you are talking about a large nation state as is the norm today but there are many smaller political entities that are possible and in such smaller entities it would be relatively easy to communicate with people in a timely way. Think of Athens or any small city state of the past even a small US state like Rhode Island or a small country like Lichtenstein there would be no problem of communicating over distance as the distances would not be large.

 

[juvenissun]

Even the Telegraph was not invented until 1844. For anything resembling a democracy, even a representitive democracy, there need to a flow of inforamtion in both directions. Candidates explaining what they think the important issues are and the votes being tallied.

Just counting the votes in a timely manner would have been a significant problem 200 years ago. But getting a clear message outto the voters was all but imposible, at least in anything resembling a timely manner, 200 years ago.

Thanks. This is a very good point.

 

[juvenissun]

That is true if you are talking about a large nation state as is the norm today but there are many smaller political entities that are possible and in such smaller entities it would be relatively easy to communicate with people in a timely way. Think of Athens or any small city state of the past even a small US state like Rhode Island or a small country like Lichtenstein there would be no problem of communicating over distance as the distances would not be large.

So, as a consequence, we should have seen many versions of democratic systems established in small areas. However, we do not see that even today.

Hmm...

 

[juvenissun]

The quickened pace to the advance of technology was a byproduct of the emergence of the less autocratic state.



I will not attempt to read the mind of the Chinese people. All leaders want to retain their power and expand it if possible so their words cannot be taken without some skepticism. Not being in China or even familiar with the current cultural values of the average Chinese person, I do not feel qualified to answer the question. Perhaps someone else with more knowledge might volunteer.

What we can see is: There is no democracy in China. However, Chinese people don't seems mind as long as they can have a safe and peaceful life.

Would this example says that democracy is not needed in human society as long as there is no poverty?

 

[grasping the after wind]

So, as a consequence, we should have seen many versions of democratic systems established in small areas. However, we do not see that even today.

Hmm...

Perhaps you haven't looked close enough? If you are simply looking for a true Democracy you will not find that but if you are speaking of democratically elected representative governments they abound today and were far from unknown in the past. Small democracies and elected representative governments have existed throughout history but since very few of them are like the Roman Republic and been major power players in world politics they are rarely if ever mentioned in the type of "Cliff notes" style of history taught in schools. Today we virtually cannot find a way to avoid a representative democratic institution in any corner of the country. In my area we have an elected school board, an elected town government, an elected county government, an elected State government and an elected national government to go along with the elected sheriff, the elected judges and the elected comptrollers that are to keep an eye on how the elected county and State governments are spending the taxes.

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps you haven't looked close enough? If you are simply looking for a true Democracy you will not find that but if you are speaking of democratically elected representative governments they abound today and were far from unknown in the past. Small democracies and elected representative governments have existed throughout history but since very few of them are like the Roman Republic and been major power players in world politics they are rarely if ever mentioned in the type of "Cliff notes" style of history taught in schools. Today we virtually cannot find a way to avoid a representative democratic institution in any corner of the country. In my area we have an elected school board, an elected town government, an elected county government, an elected State government and an elected national government to go along with the elected sheriff, the elected judges and the elected comptrollers that are to keep an eye on how the elected county and State governments are spending the taxes.

You are right.

There are leaders for small or large group of people and they could be sort of "elected" formally or informally. And this situation happened long time ago in the history. I can imagine that it happened even prehistorically.

 

[juvenissun]

Thanks to everyone who participated. I think I got a good answer from Keith99. The key factor is a speedy and efficient method of communication. Once the communication method is fast enough, then a larger scale general election becomes possible. The world does not have this capability until the Industrial Revolution took place.