Democracy, where does it really start?

TheMadMan

Democracy, a way of governing which depends on the will of the people.

It is very clear that a true form of democracy hasn't existed in any government.

The people in power, even in "democratic" nations, most of the time exploit their position for the benefits of the elite.

In a true democracy the government should serve (all) the people, so we have a system where the people are the master and the government the servant (not derogatory).

In all our attempts to create a true democracy we automatically start from criticizing (fairly so) the government (servant) but we completely disregard our own responsibility as The People (master).

Each one of us complains and protests for the unfair system and corruption of each government but have we really asked whether we have done our part, individually, our work on our selves, have we properly studied the world, our mind, the history, our biology, psychology? Have we worked on maintaining a healthy body and mind? Have we properly raised our children for the world that we want?

Is it really a surprise that the government will be sick if the voters are unhealthy?

We can easily start protesting that we can't do the things mentioned above because we live in a corrupted society, that we are trapped, but if one is honest one realizes that that is just an excuse.

We ask for a good behaving servant but are we worthy of being The Master?
If the servant has wreaked havoc for millenniums, is it not the Master's responsibility?

So a government can not be ruled by its people if The People doesn't exist.

In the end, my position is that there will never be a true from of democracy as long as The People (master) is missing and so failing to put the servant (government) in its proper place, and that starts from the hard work of every individual on their (all-directions) development.

P.s: I'm not saying that we should not remain critical to the government but what good will it do if an unhealthy person keeps complaining and protesting in front of the pizza place for selling them the pizza.

P.s.s: This is not as much a political argument as a change of perspective, direction when it comes to trying to see the solution to a problem.

Vera Mont

It is very clear that a true form of democracy hasn't existed in any government. — TheMadMan

That depends on how far back in history you look. If you stick to civilizations with a written record of governance and law, then the statement is true. If you went back through human organizations that left only oral tradition, their forms of government are not at all clear.

I like sushi

↪TheMadMan

The Master Servant dichotomy will exist to some extend always and there will always be those that serve more than others.

Democracy at work (a 'true' democracy) would seem to result in some form of tyranny for some regardless of what we do.

The ideal is more likely to be systems that are used for certain circumstances. For large-scale projects a more tyrannical/authoritarian approach makes sense and the 'democratic' ideal would kick in right after said project is complete ... rather than the 'Master/s' holding on to power after the need has subsided.

Athena

↪TheMadMan

That was an awesome explanation of our responsibility. May I ask where and when you got your education? Are there any books you recommend?

I have a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Conference explaining the teachers' role in making good citizens, patriotic citizens, and the Democracy Series of grade school text books written when we began mobilizing for the second world war. Before education for technology the priority purpose of education was defending democracy in the classroom, so the students could make us a strong democracy, as Thomas Jefferson said education must do, and as you explained our need to be educated and responsible.

Tom Storm

In the end, my position is that there will never be a true from of democracy as long as The People (master) is missing and so failing to put the servant (government) in its proper place, and that starts from the hard work of every individual on their (all-directions) development. — TheMadMan

I think you're essentially saying things I've heard fairly often over the past 40 years or so. There's truth in this. Why aren't here any great leaders today? Because there aren't great voters. Gore Vidal used to run as similar argument about it being voters rather than politicians letting the country down. He had a great line - Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half

The problem is more complicated. There is no 'The People' as such there are just people - cacophonous, diverse, polarized people. Clearly they are not united in what they want from a society and seem willing to go into battle to defend their views. How does one build agreement from such a messed up, confused, uneducated, disengaged, superstitious cohort? I'm not saying it can't be done, but it does seem to be a key obstacle.

frank

There is no 'The People' as such there are just people - cacophonous, diverse, polarized people — Tom Storm

Alternately, it's not people who matter wrt power. It's money.

Democracy happens when aristocracy declines and money comes into the hands of the common people. Money makes democracy and money ultimately undermines it. When the whole thing becomes too corrupt, the power goes back to dictatorship, and along with it, the money.

The aristocracy should definitely be slaughtered, though, no matter who's in charge.

Tom Storm

Money makes democracy and money ultimately undermines it. — frank

Agree.

tomatohorse

Such a big question, where to start. Lot of factors.

I will say, though, that one discrete positive step forward we could take is Ranked Choice Voting. Too often, you're voting for the lesser of two evils, or maybe there's a great 3rd party candidate but the media doesn't cover him and you know you'd be "throwing away" your vote. So you don't vote for the actual better candidate who you'd truly prefer, but the most pragmatic choice. RCV helps avoid that "spoiler effect" and could actually lead to more variety and higher quality of candidates.

Vera Mont

Where it began doesn't really matter to people who are alive now. What they want is a functional - rather than a nominal democracy, but they don't know how to bring it about.
Flawed electoral process is very much part of the problem.
Any of the proportional representation systems would be better than first-past-the-post, but this is meaningless in a two-party system. How to make room for more points of view, more factions, more vested interests.... You can't. as long as all the power is held by the elite that's been holding it for decades, if not centuries.

NOS4A2

↪TheMadMan

The only way democracy prevails is if there is no class of governing people. The rule of the people presupposes that the people can govern their own lives. So long as there exists a class of masters democracy is impossible.

Mikie

Not one mention — by anyone — about organizing. No talk of working together with others, no talk of unions, no talk of outreach. It’s all up to the “individual.”

Similar arguments are made about consumption. “Hey, you choose to smoke and eat fast food, that’s your right — not hurting anyone else.” Just giving people what they want, what they asked for. Sounds great — very principled.

But all of that is nonsense, of course. And if you want a reason for why society is how it is, look no further than the belief that everything depends on the individual person — a belief your entire post presupposes.

frank

Not one mention — by anyone — about organizing. No talk of working together with others, no talk of unions, no talk of outreach. It’s all up to the “individual.” — Mikie

Conservatives are usually excellent organizers. I assume it's because they're usually older, and their cause is associated with religion and traditional values.

NOS4A2

“Organizing”…it’s worked so well up until now.

Vera Mont

Conservatives are usually excellent organizers. I assume it's because they're usually older, and their cause is associated with religion and traditional values. — frank

It's more likely because, at any age, they are believers in Law and Order - that is, top-down governance, chain of command, bosshood (they prefer to call it leadership): a pyramid structure of power. Which, of course, tends toward some form of monarchy. Liberals are loosely organized, constantly shifting power relations, leadership and policy: it seeks consensus (mostly in vain). Which, of course, tends toward anarchy. A functional democracy, whether it's a trade union, bridge club or nation-state, has a structure based on some shared principles set out in a constitution; its leadership is chosen from among the members, rather than a ruling class and its policies are designed to respond to the needs of the polity.

Any system can work, so long as the governed believe in it and support it.

frank

“Organizing”…it’s worked so well up until now. — NOS4A2

It doesn't. The people make the most progress when there's violence in the air.

It's more likely because, at any age, they are believers in Law and Order - that is, top-down governance, chain of command, bosshood (they prefer to call it leadership): a pyramid structure of power. Which, of course, tends toward some form of monarchy — Vera Mont

True, although rule of law and monarchy are directly opposed concepts.

Liberals are loosely organized, constantly shifting power relations, leadership and policy: it seeks consensus (mostly in vain). — Vera Mont

I agree except liberalism isn't really about consensus. At it's heart, it's about morality. For the liberal, if the choice is between living morally and dying, they choose death. The conservative puts life first. Or at least that's one way to look at it.

Mikie

↪frank

↪NOS4A2

Don’t worry your little heads about it. Go back to naval-gazing. Because that’s worked wonders the last 40 years. :up:

frank

Don’t worry your little heads about it. Go back to naval-gazing. Because that’s worked wonders the last 40 years. — Mikie

Whereas random whining has elevated the downtrodden. :up:

Mikie

Union organizing, civil rights movement, environmental movement, etc. “Random whining.”

:lol:

Vera Mont

rule of law and monarchy are directly opposed concepts. — frank

Not at all! The very oldest written legal code was decreed by Hammurabi, king of Babylon. Monarchs don't generally make arbitrary decisions over civic organization - when they try, they're usually deposed or assassinated. They operate within a system of accepted principles and values, just as theocrats, democrats and bureaucrats do.
The phrase "rule of law" as is generally used in modern western political parlance is assumed to refer to a legal system enacted by a congress or parliament, because that's the system we're used to. But laws are enforces in every kind of political system. Authoritarian systems usually have more laws than liberal ones and a lot more of them pertain to the citizen's [moral] private life.

liberalism isn't really about consensus — frank

It's about the principle of personal autonomy and civic co-operation. In practice, it seeks consensus, in preference to imposing one person's or faction's decisions on everyone else. Which conservatives very much do.

For the liberal, if the choice is between living morally and dying, they choose death. The conservative puts life first. Or at least that's one way to look at it. — frank

Then how come conservative governments the world over build up bigger armies, spend more money on weapons, start more wars and execute more felons?

frank

Union organizing, civil rights movement, environmental movement, etc. “Random whining.” — Mikie

I'm glad to see you accepting that labor unions were once powerful in the US. You denied that the last time we talked. Doing some history reading? :up:

Mikie

Just a shame that some internet dude wasn’t around to inform Martin Luther King that organizing “doesn’t work well”, that he was engaging in “random whining,” and that what he really should have been doing is more naval-gazing.

Because, you know, “history.”

frank

The phrase "rule of law" as is generally used in modern western political parlance is assumed to refer to a legal system enacted by a congress or parliament, because that's the system we're used to. — Vera Mont

I agree that rule of law evolved from earlier forms of government, but the phrase specifically means a society in which no one is above the law.

liberalism isn't really about consensus
— frank
It seeks consensus, in preference to imposing one person's or faction's values on everyone else. Which conservatives very much do. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure which kind of liberalism you're referring to. I was using the word in the American sense. American liberals do fervently want to impose their view on others. That's in line with the importance they place on morality. If slavery is wrong, it's wrong for everyone.

frank

Martin Luther King that organizing “doesn’t work well”, — Mikie

His organizational backbone was religious. I explained this earlier.

NOS4A2

Organize so that you can beg for scraps from another organization’s table.

praxis

American liberals do fervently want to impose their view on others. — frank

And conservatives don’t?

That's in line with the importance they place on morality. — frank

Morality isn’t as important to conservatives?

frank

American liberals do fervently want to impose their view on others.
— frank

And conservatives don’t? — praxis

Social conservatives do. Again, it goes back to the importance they place on morality.

That's in line with the importance they place on morality.
— frank

Morality isn’t as important to conservatives? — praxis

In the grand scheme of things, a conservative view is more about practicality. Individual conservatives vary.

praxis

In the grand scheme of things, a conservative view is more about practicality. — frank

"Jesus Guns Babies" are each rather impractical, truth be told.

Mikie

Pretend there’s no such thing as the outside world, while begging for scraps from our Great Leader Trump. :up:

Benj96

↪TheMadMan

It's worth noting that because democracy is based on majority vote, it does not neccesarily attend nor reflect the needs or marginalised groups, minorities.

Minorities therefore in voting likelynwoukd not get their say acknowledged unless their concerns are considered by all who are voting. An exercise on informing, due publication, thorough journalism.

Mikie

to reverse today’s inequality requires a robust embrace of unions—but of unions that are democratic, focused on bottom-up rather than top-down strategies, and place the primary agency for change in workers acting collectively at work and in the communities in which they reside.

— Jane McAlevey

Or we can go with posturing on the internet.

frank

In the grand scheme of things, a conservative view is more about practicality.
— frank

"Jesus Guns Babies" are each rather impractical, truth be told. — praxis

Is it?

Democracy, where does it really start?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions