If by Democracy you mean US-style government, yes, because we're a federal republic with representative government - but with a democratic heart. And I think I speak for any American worthy of name: the heart is no illusion.

"Western world" is not fair, take a look at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-10/democracy-index-economist-intelligence-unit-2018/10703184

America is listed as a "flawed democracy" and it's easy to understand why. The money in American politics, the connections that assist in victory and the role of the media in American politics are all extremely concerning.

I think it's a bit rich for Putin to be talking about flawed democracies since I wouldn't even call Russia an actual democracy but he isn't wrong that American democracy is flawed.

If Voting Made a Difference, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It — Mark Twain

I like this one.

I believe most of this. I don't think that any politician since the beginning of recorded history has cared about those they represent. (at least not enough to make the world a better place for them) I don't know how I feel about a class of "masters" above them though. It certainly is possible, but in my observation sometimes legislation is passed that limits the power of the corporations and organizations that line the pockets of congressmen etc. Of course, it is mostly in favor of big business, so I don't think that's too big a point.

The "world order" conspiracy idea has always intrigued me because unlike other crack theories, there is actually a motive. Infinite wealth for you and your bloodline is a very good motive, and I can think of some people I know personally who would probably stab me in the back for that. Of course, they would justify it by saying, "I would donate the money" or, "It's for my children". Greed and a desire for strength is human nature, at least that's what I've seen.

This whole idea reminds me of the Russian revolution. Of course, I'm not an expert on the topic, but the general idea was that the Tsar wasn't taking care of his people and communists began to fight back. After the war was won, the communist party took power and people died of famine and were sent to gulags. I think it is very likely that originally the revolutionaries wanted a better world, but ambition for power lead to corruption of that idea.

It makes one think, can a truly egalitarian society even exist? Do human social hierarchies work that way? If they don't, can we change ourselves to make them work?

It brings up ethical questions as well. Can the poor be happy? Is suffering worth safety? Is human civilization even worth it if it means that while we are safe, we can never be free? Of course, I think those are the questions the ruling class doesn't want us to ask.

Isn't Democracy just an illusion made out of a Hollywood movie — pbxman

Not really -- Hollywood hasn't been around that long.

The quality of governance in the United States varies a great deal from national to state to county and city levels. It differs from place to place, and it differs over time. There are too many moving parts to all the political mechanisms to allow for gross generalizations and over-simplifications.

Not least among the moving parts are the electorate who have something to do with the quality of our political life in this sort of democratic republic. Then of course there are a lot of very focussed efforts being applied to the electorate to keep us too confused to vote boldly for better results.

Governments tend to be most attentive to those with the most power in society -- the wealthiest people. The United States has a lot of wealthy people who have seen to it that their interests are well protected.

As Karl Marx put it, "Government is a committee to organize the affairs of the richest people." We see this principle reenacted again and again where national, state, and local governments--elected all--hand over to the wealthiest citizens benefits.

Here's an example: The owners of the Minnesota Twins and the Minnesota Vikings both wanted new facilities, paid for largely at public expense. The voters in Minneapolis rejected the plans (for both teams) because they didn't want yet another sales tax surcharge tacked on to help pay for the venues which, to be honest, most citizens would never use. Further, the owners of the teams would be the primary beneficiaries.

What happened? The state government over-rode the popular vote and imposed the cost of the facilities on the metro area.

So much for democracy, right?

Have a chat with Plato, who thinks that democracy is a degenerate form of government.

The ideal state is an aristocracy in which rule is exercised by one or more distinguished people. Unfortunately, owing to human nature, the ideal state is unstable and liable to degenerate into timocracy (government by property owners), oligarchy, democracy, and, finally, tyranny. States are not made of oak and rock, but of people, and so come to resemble the people of which they are made. Aristocracies are made of just and good people; timocracies of proud and honour-loving people; oligarchies of misers and money-makers; democracies of people who are overcome by unnecessary desires; and tyrannies of people who are overcome by harmful desires.

Plato provides a detailed account of the degeneration of the state from aristocracy to tyranny via timocracy, oligarchy, and democracy. Democracy in particular arises from the revolt of the disenfranchised in an oligarchy. The state is ‘full of freedom and frankness’ and every citizen is able to live as he pleases.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/hide-and-seek/201607/plato-democracy-tyranny-and-the-ideal-state

The ideal state is an aristocracy in which rule is exercised by one or more distinguished people.

It's worth pointing out that by 'aristocracy', Plato meant a type of meritocratic rule by the 'best' rather than in the privileged, hereditary landowning sense in which we use the term today. By 'best' he meant the those who had successfully undertaken the rigorous philosophical training that he outlines in the Republic.

Regarding the illusory (or not) nature of democracy, that rather depends on what you expect from a democracy. Nowadays, all democracies are representative, which means there is only democracy when the electorate gets to vote (every 4-5 years in most cases) and even then the real power lies with whoever sets the agenda; like the illusion of choice in deciding how you're going to be tortured, the US two party dichotomy demonstrates this nicely.

The term 'representative democracy' in itself is contradictory and misleading since if a democracy is not direct than it is not a democracy. A better term for the system most of us have today is 'elected oligarchy'.

Understood as elected oligarchies, most of the criticisms of modern (representative) democracies dissolve and can be seen as inevitabilities of a system skewed in favour of the wealthy.

Given human nature, our lust/weakness for wealth and power, any form of government, no matter how well-thought, is going to be just another illusion.

Perhaps it's not a choice between something real and an illusion but one between two/more illusions. Which dream of good governance would you prefer?

I think the problem has been swallowed by a pool of intricacies. There's all sorts of games at play with keeping people in this hypnotic illusive state.

I agree with that "money makes the world go round" this is quite literally the truth. If a world leader doesn't succumb to the incentive of money and it's power, then the money will be offered to someone to take the dangerous path in relieving the former from their position. By whatever means necessary.

Even when trying to look at a solution out of the problem, perhaps a civil war for example? If that happens it will more than likely affect the psychology and minds of the people involved. We become violent and angry, If we win, great, but then we have just conditioned ourselves to which violence and anger is the answer. Once this has been established how can we expect good people to take over? and even more specifically what do we mean by "take over"? Just run the simulation again? Change the system completely?

We have and still are being taught that no other system will work. Most people believe that things like votes and the choice are actually what they seem. Let's take the Brexit vote from the UK, the vote happened, the people were ill-informed and majority of the people who voted were voting for something that was completely unaffected by the vote. Immigration. The pure hatred of another race, religion or whatever. Now that's not to say that everyone who voted had that in mind. We voted out. Has anyone noticed how much fear mongering is going on? As if to suggest the people (this democracy) failed, we as the people chose wrong. To now make it look like the government is great and they will pick up the pieces. They promote this uneducated view with all the ISIS issues and bombing of Syria, give us a vote to leave the union between countries, soon after all this, knowing that people are wary of the implications of terrorism and tyranny. To then use that to suggest we're not very good at voting. Creates a sort of animosity between the people. Divide and conquer.

It's so cleverly played and worked out. Now, yes it's completely possible that it's just fell apart, and it's all really simple. Which would then suggest, why have we got people in charge that can't lead properly and don't really have a clue. But, personally I don't believe that at all. They are well informed. Whether that is due to the "puppeteers" that are behind the scenes, I don't know. We will never know until they want us to, by that time it would be more than likely too late.

People also shy away from the idea that the world is a lie because they believe its too complicated and too big an idea for it to be real. But that's the whole reason why it probably is.

Different doors, and options all leading to the same place.

Is democracy an illusion? No.

Is there any "direct/'pure' democracy" where people simply vote on everything and that's that? No.

Could there be a "direct/'pure' democracy"? Yes, but it's unlikely we'd ever have that, and most people probably wouldn't want it.

Are representative democracies complex and kind of messy? Yes. That doesn't imply they're not democracies, though.

Do I think that there's something inherently preferable to democracies? No. What I care about is what laws a country does and doesn't have. I couldn't care less if those laws were put in place by a democracy, an oligarchy, a king--whatever. Democracies aren't any more likely to have laws that I agree with.

Could there be a "direct/'pure' democracy"? Yes, but it's unlikely we'd ever have that, and most people probably wouldn't want it. — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure if a modern direct democracy is 'unlikely'. There are many instances of participatory democracies which bridge the gap between direct and representative forms. New communications technologies can only make citizen participation easier so we can reasonably predict an increase in participation.

The assumption that most people wouldn't want this is merely a convenient fiction perpetuated by main beneficiaries of representative democracies; namely politician and the business communities.

Democracies aren't any more likely to have laws that I agree with. — Terrapin Station

I can't speak for your taste in laws, but even so, I suspect that democracies are far more likely to have the laws you agree with. Of course, it is conceivable that an enlightened and benign dictator could make better laws than a democratically elected government, but should the enlightened and benign dictator be superseded by an evil dictator there are not the legislative mechanisms in place to protect the people that are found in democracies.

Is it an illusion, no. However I get you point. I say democracy is a dictatorship. Not because it a dictatorship but rather dictatorship tactics are used to mantian power. In the same way democracy is an illusion, not because it is an illusion but rather you feel you have less or no say.

I believe that a lot of systems are emergent.
They start off somehow, and evolve; evolution being one of the emergent processes. Life starts at a point and quite often becomes more complex, and interconnected. Intelligent species evolve with the ability to communicate, and form philosophies and systems of thought and understanding.

The whole thing is founded on needs, eg for food, water, and later clothes, housing..systems emerge that fulfil these needs, and defend them, which leads to power structures, but I always like to think of the way that so called powerful people still have the same original basic needs. They are still just ordinary people, not Super Man, and the people around them may defend their interests, but they may also undermine them, and at some point kill them, or take away their power...so these people only have limited powers in the end, and no one is immortal...

Tribes arose, leading to kings, and at some point, people nearer the base of the power structure wanted more power, which lead gradually to the emancipation of ordinary citizens...during this hand over, or apparent hand over, systems of information dissemination gradually evolved as well.
Along came the printing press and I read the two first thins to be printed were the Bible and pornography(writing I suppose)...the Bible once translated to English, instead of being in the hands of religious authorities, lead to the unifying in how English was spoken across the country, and lead to higher literacy levels.
And along comes news papers; must have started as one or a few pieces of paper, and along comes advertising. News organisations evolve to survive, they depend on advertising, they depend on readers......anyway news organisations are made of people, who still have the same basic needs as a squirrel, ie they need food and water, and not to be killed.

From the lowliest reporter to the editor, they all have the same fears and needs; to belong to a society that will look after them; to have food and shelter, and after that a quality of life,...if you think anyone in a news organisation is purely interested in reporting real facts, and an honest narrative, you have to look at the context of their reporting, ie the person's needs....if reporting a single thing which upsets the editor, because it upsets the owner, or someone powerful, then that person will tread very carefully...personally they may see value in reporting honestly, personal for the meaning of their own existence, and life; and also as it may actually appeal to the readers/viewers...but they have to be careful. And so a system of media control emerges, mainly due to money in eg advertisers....there is spun some sort of multie threaded narrative which is supposed to benefit the rich and powerful, it can benefit ordinary people as well as the ongoing functioning of society is in their benefit.

I don't really like the 'puppet master' term, as I think things are more emergent and subtle than that....the rich and powerful still have their basic needs, any one of them who stirs up too much trouble will be in danger...remember the media can spin a narrative that suits bringing down one of the rich and powerful any time they like...some rich people are fine being all benevolent and talking sense..this makes the rich look good, and spins into the narrative that all is good with the world...with their glories leaders..

Various conspiracy theories can make the rich and powerful look good, eg the 9/11 hoax stuff, as it has the consequence of making the powerful look almost superhumanly competent...and also on the other hand making conspiracy believers, or people who doubt that democracy is real, look a bit unhinged.

No, democracy, or the word, and whatever way people mostly view it, is the wool that is pulled over people's eyes to stop them seeing the truth(Morpheus :p )...the matrix of narratives.

I think you are taking a rather naive approach here. Yes we are all human after all but that doesn't mean conspiracies don't happen and the rich and powerful don't deceive the population to keep a status quo that benefits them (cui bono). You have a clear example in the Roman empire then again we believe that is something from the past that could never happen in our time.
People do have faith in the mass-media even when the President of the United States called them fake news.
I believe that the times we are going through relate to that Nietzsche "Eternal Return" different times but humans face the same situations. There is "nothing new under the sun".

As for 9/11 this forum is not the right one to discuss that. All I can say is that the mass-media is admitting "the gulf of Tonking"(Vietnam) as a lie and Nayirah (First war in the gulf) as another life.

Truth is told yes but when it's no longer relevant.

The assumption that most people wouldn't want this is merely a convenient fiction perpetuated by main beneficiaries of representative democracies; namely politician and the business communities. — Txastopher

It's difficult to get people to vote every four years even. They're going to want to vote on stuff weekly (or even more often)?

I can't speak for your taste in laws, but even so, I suspect that democracies are far more likely to have the laws you agree with. — Txastopher

What are you basing that belief on?

no I don't believe I am being naive. I know people can be corrupt at all levels, from a second hand car salesman to the king of NewYork, or whatever, but the whole system is emergent imo...no one is actually in control...I think it can be based upon a subtle guiding of narrative, subtle threats to people's interests, and lives...a reporter, or editor might not be being 'controlled' by someone, but there are influences on their actions, maybe even subconsciously...subliminal messages in the media, that weren't put there deliberately, they just appear, and go unnoticed..subtle assumptions are spread in the telling of as movie story for example.

As I said, evolution itself is an emergent process, and look at the complexity of the systems, biology that come about...how much more complex is society....there are people with some power, but the whole thing has a momentum that no one really has much say in.

I agree with that but if you were one those 1% people(who owns 99% of the world's wealth) would you like the world to be any different? There are computer systems to get rid of paper money therefore a great deal of corruption with go away eg. "tax heavens who profit from money laundry, drug and guns trafficking, etc" ? Why don't they do it? Evolution sounds like a natural process but societies have a great deal of artificiality, after all we are not entirely apes.

Real progresses in societies came when people could not take it anymore eg. "The French Revolution". Don't you think modern rulers know that? The old Roman formula bread&circus seem to work better than ever then again conditions and quality of life seem to get worse and worse in spite of technological advances. Why is that? We can blow up the world several times, decode the DNA, put a man on the moon etc but we cannot create a fairer and better economic system? I don't think so I believe there are strong interests but we are dumbed down mostly by the fake-news to keep the world as it is for the sake of a few in detriment of the many.

Well I agree that not everybody has the will to make the world a better place but plenty of people do not just politicians. Why should we use a system of representatives when those are bribed and they play the same charlatan role every time and seem to be completely inefficient when it comes to producing real changes? Isn't "insanity doing the same thing an expecting different results" as Einstein would say?
There are plenty of NGOs and Non-profit organizations filled with idealistic people who want to make the world a better place. Why not using direct democracy for those people instead of a system of representatives? Why not choosing those representatives randomly instead of having a cast of people from a certain background from a wealthy family? If we did that it would be in our best interest to give people the best education possible and teaching kids to develop their own critical thinking skills instead of lobotomizing them with crappy music, fashion and drugs.
I believe that we should not surrender at least we should allow ourselves the right to dream of a better world after all what you think you become...

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

Ours is an imperfect union and doubtless there is much room for improvement but over time things have actually been getting better not worse. Should we reform the electoral college, establish open primaries, make it easier to vote (not harder) and remove corporate money from our politics, definitely. Are there movements to accomplish these things, yes, Will it be easy, no. There is a mechanism for change and our history shows that change is possible, so all this pessimism seems unfounded.

No, it's a parlour trick the mystery of which has long been unveiled, yet everyone still flocks to it. The illusion is whatever an individual creates in its own mind to justify its participation.

According to selectorate theory the primary goal of a leader is to remain in power. To remain in power, leaders must maintain their winning coalition. When the winning coalition is small, as in autocracies, the leader will tend to use private goods to satisfy the coalition. When the winning coalition is large, as in democracies, the leader will tend to use public goods to satisfy the coalition. So though there’s no fundamental difference between types of government in this theory, democracy is the best choice for the most people.

In political theory 'democracy' is defined differently by different academics - there are some very interesting ways to conceive of democracy, and each would place different modern states into the 'democracy' category. But there is no consensus agreement. I would say that the closest thing to a consensus that academics have is that we often strive for democracy, and we are always exploring and improving the concept, but that the ideal of a democracy always seems to be around the corner. With each step, though, we are hopefully becoming more and more democratic.