Is Democracy Over-rated?

[stona]

If the Pee Emm wants to know if you're happy, then you tell him what you b****y well think! No! For crying out loud!

Or vote him out and give someone else a go at the first opportunity. They might not do any better but at least you have the choice. That choice has cost a lot of blood and treasure and is too often taken forgranted nowadays.
Noone was going to vote Idi Amin out and Mugabe is still hanging in there.

I'm not a monarchist but there is a huge difference between an absolute and a constitutional monarchy. CharlesI didn't get it and it cost him his head. Incidentally look at the uncanny similarities between the demands and ideals of those mid seventeenth century parliamentarians,who finally resorted to beheading a King, and the objectives and ideals of another group of revolutionaries in the American colonies a hundred years or so later. These concepts of freedom,liberty and the rights of man live on across the generations and are still extant in our democracies today.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Njaco]

What most see as orderly change is, in truth, incremental change ...slow, unnoticed build up along a fault line or in a volcano. This continues as a natural outcome until there is sudden, violent change, which is often transformational. And then .... it repeats .... Far reaching change, long lasting change, is usually determined by events rather than by free will, IMHO.

MM

Is it change or is it entropy?

Democracy as first envisioned has deteriorated and fallen back upon itself because there was one factor that wasn't taken into account: the very common human failing called greed. Greed has so distorted democracy that most of it has become cumbersome and redundant and lost the orginal meaning. Yes, there are freedoms but through legislation, they are being eroded. Yes, one can succeed and be rich but that is slowly being taken away. And is this really a democracy in the US? I laughed the last few years when they called Obamacare 'socialist".

Lets take driving down the road.

First the car that you are driving was built according to safety standards set by the government. It must be inspected and have features as required by the Government.

The road you are driving on was created by the government to standards set by the government. There are laws from the government on how you operate that car on the road.

Even to operate that car you must be approved by the government to drive the car and must do so within certain limits such as alcohol/drug limits, vision, age.

So the the simple act of driving to the store is smothered with government intervention. Now I'm not saying this isn't good. But is this Democracy? Or is this a mutation of democracy after 200 years.

I see Democracy as visioned by the Founding Fathers as having run its course and a new versin to soon raise its head that will address the greed factor.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Interesting example. There are jursdictions in the US and Europe that are currently experimenting with eliminating traffic signs and stop lights --- in all trial cases accidents and pedestrian fatalities have gone down-- because people react to being in less-governed environments and behave more intelligently.

I personally don't much care for greed -- but it is a great motivator for some people.

Entropy is change (of a sort) but not all change is entropy. When you drop ink into a glass of water the intensity of the ink starts to diminish immediately and continues until the water-ink mixture is homogenous. That force - to dissapate the ink in the water - is entropy IIRC.

MM

 

[tyrodtom]

Where in the US have they experimented with eliminating traffic signs and stop lights ???

 

[stona]

Where in the US have they experimented with eliminating traffic signs and stop lights ???

Don't know about the US but the Dutch are big on this. There are a few such schemes appearing in th UK,one just up the road from me in Wolverhampton IIRC.

Entropy,in a scientific sense,can be seen as the direction of increasing disorder. Not a good thing in a political context.

Cheers
Steve

Edit The boss has a better memory and she says there is a junction in West Bromwich on which all signs and lights have been removed. The road in the junction is now coloured red. She also opins that "someone will be killed there before long". I learnt many years ago that she is always right!

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Where in the US have they experimented with eliminating traffic signs and stop lights ??? "

I may have mis-spoken on US ... checking.

MM

 

[The Basket]

Not sure how democracy can be replaced.

Not sure how driving a car and traffic lights are a sure sign of impending revolution.

The cuts in spending by the British government are a good case. Here is a government who is removing services from the people it represents and making the people worse off. Who would vote to be worse off?

 

[Matt308]

... I predict that this thread will not end well.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... So the the simple act of driving to the store is smothered with government intervention. Now I'm not saying this isn't good. But is this Democracy? Or is this a mutation of democracy after 200 years."

I think it's called dumbing down.

"... Not sure how driving a car and traffic lights are a sure sign of impending revolution."

I must have missed that claim.

" ... I predict that this thread will not end well."

I said that about the Euro, Matt308, . But so far ..... ? So I keep an open mind.

MM

 

[Readie]

Democracy is basically the voice of the people who can choose the government and hold it accountable.
Now, we have the politics of the personality rather than policy, we have global influence on the countries economy that are outside the control of the elected government, we have a listless electorate who can't be bothered to think about who they are voting for, we have millions spent to convince us that so and so is the solution, trustworthy and that all need a change of political direction however small.
The truth is that if people cannot be bothered to vote thoughtfully, or even vote at all then we get the leaders we deserve.
As Pete Townshend said, 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'
and the vain hope that we wont get fooled again.
Some hope
John

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... we have the politics of the personality rather than policy, we have global influence on the countries economy that are outside the control of the elected government, we have a listless electorate who can't be bothered ....."

I'm not sure anything in that list is new ..... to these times, R.

Let's talk about Iceland, as an example of democracy in action. Small country. Fairly homogeneous population, I'm thinking. Need to be industrious and innovative to survive in that environment. Etc. Etc.

Institutions in Iceland invested very heavily (way too heavily, greed ) in US sub-prime mortgage derivatives (Fannie Freddie ). When the crash hit in 2008 Iceland was absolutely devastated - especially the banks. Investors in Icelandic banks from GB called for the Icelandic government to redeem their losses. Voters in Iceland were asked if they agreed with this and basically said: "NO".

Now - here we have a perfect storm. Foreign markets. Global crisis. Bad financial strategy at home in Iceland (and the UK). And what the voters there said (in the midst of their own losses) was: "we've lost millions through lack of due diligence and diversification, why should foreigners expect our banks to treat them any differently than they do us". And the Icelandic government listened.

If little countries like Iceland, Finland, Estonia, Singapore, etc. can navigate through the troubled waters of today - in a more-or-less democratic fashion - than DEMOCRACY IS NOT DEAD nor on the watch list.

[Anyone who can post more accurately the Icelandic sub-prime derivatives crisis than I have is welcome to jump in - I cite it only as an example].

Remember: we all have our distant biological roots in hunter-gathering . Government, back then was groups of 20-30. Bigger is NOT automatically better.

MM

 

[Florence]

Is Democracy Over-rated?

Probably not if you live in a dictatorship.

Governments are over rated. However, without some form of government/societal control then wouldn't anarchy reign? To a certain degree civilisation depends on some form of government.

Democracy at least gives you the right to chose who screws you over.

Just a thought.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".. Governments are over rated."

Agreed.

[I'm from the Government. I'm here to help you."]

MM

 

[Njaco]

".. Governments are over rated."

Agreed.

[I'm from the Government. I'm here to help you."]

MM

Hey! Thats my line!!!

 

[buffnut453]

There are options for representative government that are not democratic. For example, gatherings of elders from various tribes to negotiate trade, settle disputes etc is a form of non-democratic representative government which can, theoretically, be made to work even in the modern world.

Democracy has 2 big problems that militate against its effectiveness as a system of governance:

1. It relies upon an informed population.
2. The expectation is that people will logically vote for the best candidate.

With the technological revolution, we are drowning in information but populations are hardly better informed today than they were in the past (except, perhaps, when a politician has been caught with his pants down...literally or figuratively). To expect the vast majority of people to understand the complex financial, political, social and international challenges that face government is, frankly, ridiculous. And even if we could understand it all, we'd still be susceptible to spin from politicians, the news media, special interest groups etc etc. I also find it equally ridiculous that we are supposed to make value judgements on candidates based on little more than 30-second sound-bytes. "Tell me, Mr President, how you're going to solve the national debt problem but please keep your answer to 30 seconds as our audience can't focus for longer than that (plus we need to cut to a commercial break which will extol the virtues of a no-touch dispenser for hand sanitizer which prevents the spread of germs!)."

As for logic in voting, sadly humankind are still emotional, tribal animals. We often vote with our hearts not our heads or, worse, go with the crowd or with "tradition" ("Me Dad was a Labour man, me Grandad was a Labour man...I'm a Labour man, too!" - this must be read in a very thick northwest English accent...I know, 'cos that's where I grew up.). Given that there are dyed-in-the-wool leftists and equally obdurate right-wingers, politicians are fighting over the middle-ground of floating voters which, essentially, means that the "kingmakers" are those who sit on the fence or don't take a direct, active role in the political process - either way, it's a pitifully small proportion of the population who end up deciding who becomes the next leader.

For all my criticism, however, it's still the best form of governance that mankind has come up with. Personally, I'd prefer it if voting was restricted to those who can prove an ability to balance both sides of a complex argument and make a reasoned selection based solely upon the merits, or otherwise, of the proposed solutions. I then get accused of being "elitist" to which I have the rebuttal that it would be a great motivator for getting people to improve their education and awareness of global issues. The downside is that, rather than improving their ability to process complex issues, the non-voting proletariat (who undoubtedly will significantly outnumber the voters) are far more likely to revolt and start a civil war...what else is there to do on a Saturday night in Bradford?

Happy thoughts!!!

 

[nuuumannn]

Firstly, Readie, I should apologise if my last post was mistaken for being a bit harsh; I was merely expressing my concern for the British government's apparent impotence with regard to recent events in the UK; I suspect little will change after the riots. The talk is strong, but the will is weak.

NJACO, although I agree that perhaps there is aspects of our lives that we might have little control over, perhaps the example you gave was not the best, however. Most of the things you listed would have been put before a committee of elected representatives and passed as law. Laws don't just pop up and become established. They have to be voted on in parliament/congress. If there is more opposition to them than favour, they will not be passed. You, as a citizen of your nation have the right to oppose or support any issue put forward by the government. Regarding greed as an element of human nature, as I pointed out earlier, greed is not the sole preserve of a democratic process. Overhauling the political system won't change a thing in this regard. It is up to the government to implement higher taxes on those who earn over a certain amount, or put controls in place to enable welfare for those who desperately require it. Changing the political system will not alter the growing income gap between the rich and poor in the USA.

Buffnut453 (453 Sqn?) I agree with much of what you are saying (mitigate, rather than militate)

Given that there are dyed-in-the-wool leftists and equally obdurate right-wingers, politicians are fighting over the middle-ground of floating voters which, essentially, means that the "kingmakers" are those who sit on the fence or don't take a direct, active role in the political process - either way, it's a pitifully small proportion of the population who end up deciding who becomes the next leader.

The simple way of changing this is by imposing a law (NJACO's gonna hate this one) stating that it is compulsory to vote. They do this in Australia, you can receive huge fines for not voting. Or you can put in place a different means of electing your representatives in parliament. New Zealanders will go to the polls on Saturday and we will make a decision, not just on which party will govern for the next three years, or maybe four if John Key (National, centre right) gets in again, but also whether proportional representation is maintained or one of three other options is put in place. If MMP remains, it will be examined and changed, as many argue that minority parties have too much say over who gets into power depending on alliances formed beforehand. Anyhoo, deciding which demographic in society votes is not the right way to go about it. If you want people to improve their political awareness, then it is up to your government to put measures in place to enable them to do so. Education is not just down to us, but, as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.

...what else is there to do on a Saturday night in Bradford?

Eat pie and mooshy pees! I notice you no longer live there.

Perhaps the United States needs to change its system to a fairer one? Readie pointed out the cult of personality; crikey! The President is almost revered like a god over there! How would the Unted States fare if proportional representation was in place, where minority parties had a greater voice and the big two were reliant on them to form a working government?

 

[buffnut453]

Hi nuuumannn,

Mitigate = makes something less severe
Militate against = affect something adversely

I knew what I was saying....I think

Making it compulsory to vote doesn't improve either of the issues I raised - the uninformed still have the loudest voice and the "floating voter" remains a minority and hence has a disproportionate impact on the outcome of elections.

Proportional representation, if implemented at all, needs to be done so very, VERY carefully. It's too easy to reach the ridiculous situation where every policy gets stalled because the squillions of little parties are all wasting time working out alliances on every single issue. In short, there's a real chance of absolutely nothing getting done - ever.

As for Bradford...I just chose that at random. I'm actually from t'other side o' t'border - St.Helens (when it was Lancashire not Merseyside).

 

[Readie]

Firstly, Readie, I should apologise if my last post was mistaken for being a bit harsh;

No need mate, I didn't think that you were doing anything other than expressing your opinion.

I think that we have been taken for a ride here in Britain, and with another out of touch upper class twit in charge what hope is there?

The latest pictures in the newspapers shows Cameron walking in a park with his baby in a papoose with a headline saying that the PM is 'too busy to take your call'...its almost as bad as Blair on TV being seen running out of his home with a cup of coffee and toast to eat on the way to work... 'one of the people?' I should coca.

Bevan would turn in his grave if he could see these clowns.

John

 

[nuuumannn]

Making it compulsory to vote doesn't improve either of the issues I raised - the uninformed still have the loudest voice and the "floating voter" remains a minority and hence has a disproportionate impact on the outcome of elections

Hi Buffnut453, would you rather they not vote at all, thereby compounding the problem? If they had to vote, they might put a bit more thought into what they were doing? The answer to your dilemma is, as I stated education, which, again depends on the individual, nevertheless, you can't restrict voting to a particular demographic. That is not democratic at all.

Proportional representation, if implemented at all, needs to be done so very, VERY carefully. It's too easy to reach the ridiculous situation where every policy gets stalled because the squillions of little parties are all wasting time working out alliances on every single issue. In short, there's a real chance of absolutely nothing getting done - ever.

That's a bit of an oversimplification; I can tell you that in reality the alliances can and do work effectively if they have good leadership. Many countries, including New Zealand have proven that it can work, granted, the system needs a bit of adjusting, but it is probably the fairest system of democratic government there is. FPP certainly is not fair and doesn't give minority parties any voice at all. There is also likely to be less satisfaction among the voters if they know that the election will always be a two-horse race. I lived in the UK during the Blair and Major years and I saw how and why the Tories lost and Labour came to power in 1997, I also saw how disillusioned they became with Labour through successive elections. I think the catch phrase of the last election Blair won, by a very slim margin, became "better the devil you know, than the devil you don't".

As for Bradford...I just chose that at random. I'm actually from t'other side o' t'border - St.Helens (when it was Lancashire not Merseyside).

off topic slightly, I take it you are one of those select individuals who refuse to believe the Brewster Buffalo was a dog? I'm with you there. For the most underrated combat aircraft however, my choice is the Boulton Paul Defiant.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... populations are hardly better informed today than they were in the past"

I would argue that on many things populations are less well informed today -- people are exposed to so much information that they no longer know what or who they are.
Am I really a woman in this man's body ....huh? Was my grandaddy a WW2 murdering airman .... WTF! I could go on but I think you get my drift

MM