Democracy and the population

[Antares]

I think most of us agree that democracy is the most suitable system. A post in another thread inspired me to ask this question: Do you think people are responsible, fair and good citizens in general? Or would giving power to them undermine state interests? Would they vote responsibly?

[phantasma]

The irresponsible ones don't even care too much, so they don't vote as much as the responsible ones.

[Karamazov]

Yet, those responsible voters inadvertently make irresponsible decisions. Even worse, they make up the majority of the voting bloc.

[kevintr]

I think people are generaly selfish and short sighted, but they want to be fair and resposible. The problem with goverments is that they are ran by people. Democracy makes it harder for a wise leader to get polices implimented until there's a definite need, but I believe democracy shows it's strenth by stopping a well meaning fool. It's easier to destroy something than build it.

[absurd]

I think most of us agree that democracy is the most suitable system. A post in another thread inspired me to ask this question: Do you think people are responsible, fair and good citizens in general? Or would giving power to them undermine state interests? Would they vote responsibly?

No. Yes. No.

The way I see it, democracy is an excellent safety measure for preventing hostile takeovers of power in the countries where it is well-established, but it is not an efficient way to rule a country. People in general have no idea how to best run a country and this is exploited by various opportunistic politicians who simple cater to voters to get power. But the media is the biggest perpetrator of this, constantly appealing to voters through sensationalism and an all too clear political agenda.

I'd rather we had a meritocratic/democratic hybrid institution so we get the safeguarding benefits of democracy, but not the drawbacks of wasting resources on pleasing the voters in the short term.

[Antares]

It is only a safety check; democracy is a system based on keeping the power to the people so they can run the country however they like. Sure, we have some pretty stupid people out there acting only for their own interests and not what's rational, but prevention is better than cure. There are some pretty power-hungry people out there. Democracy or not, the power still lies with the people. Even in dictatorship regimes, just as long as the people don't like what is being done to them, they can overthrow the government. But experience tells me that many people don't like to be rational. Even if we can, by chance, find someone who is well meaning and wise, we can never be certain that the masses would like it. The way I see it (and I'm cynical and pessimistic by the way), people have an aversion to being rational.

[blueback]

Democracy seems to shine best in the area of balance. Rather than try to find the perfect person/group to run things forever democracy just establishes a system in which the myriad diverse selfish interests cancel each other out. By creating a system in which a single person or small group can't possibly take over the group as a whole is assured of a chance to work things out.

That being said, I do wish we had a stronger sense of responsible work ethic in this country, but I don't think that is strictly a political idea.

[Homini Lupus]

I don't see the masses as really rational, but I think most people can understand more or less what's their interest and what is not, and that they're enogh proficient in strategically voting (at least those who don't vote for "belonging" to a specific movement), wich makes democratic leaders more responsible on the long term (on the short term often dictators are good at understanding what the majority wants, but as dictators are expressions of a given moment, on the long term they don't understand it anymore and they need to be removed). This is why I prefer democratic systems to others (civil rights may be possible in other systems, but responsible government is expressed at its best by democracy, at least until now). I would like to see a better system than current democracy, but I can't.

[Madrigal]

The masses are not "inherently" anything - neither rational nor irrational. In a system in which they are disempowered and educated to not make their own decisions (the democracy we know now), they will not be intelligent descision makers. However, history periodically creates situations in which people begin to awaken from their slumber. Crises, struggles, wars, etc. And then humanity witnesses moments of mass intelligence. Large sectors of the population begin to understand the hidden mechanisms of corruption, oppression and control. And so intelligence is a collective yet intermittent phenomenon in history.

[Homini Lupus]

The problem about those moments of collective rising is that, even if it is relatively easy to concord about the need of changing the system, it is not easy to find an alternative accepted by everybody. The impressions I had is that the masses are more likely to be moved by mass emotions rather than mass intelligence, but it is very difficult to objectively examine masses' reactions to stimuli.

[Madrigal]

The problem about those moments of collective rising is that, even if it is relatively easy to concord about the need of changing the system, it is not easy to find an alternative accepted by everybody. The impressions I had is that the masses are more likely to be moved by mass emotions rather than mass intelligence, but it is very difficult to objectively examine masses' reactions to stimuli.

It is okay to be moved by emotions. A population that is angry, outraged, and hateful towards leaders that have plunged the country into poverty, war or mass unemployment (for example) may draw on their feelings as well as their intellect when they decide to put their foot down. It would be artificial to separate these things. We are complete human beings who make decisions on the basis of a variety of factors. I believe that struggles often start out spontaneously, dominated by feelings, and as they progress and learn from their experiences, they begin to acquire a very rational level of organization and strategic thinking. They are all necessary phases in developing awareness.

Of course, if you do not have a coherent party to influence the masses when they are empowered, a party that has studied and analyzed history's lessons, and tested its program and members before these crucial moments, the big opportunity for Change could well be lost for decades. Once the masses are ready to fight, the system prepares to fight back, and it becomes a race against time. One side will lose. A coherent party cannot be born from one day to the next - so some people logically live to prepare themselves for these moments.

[Homini Lupus]

Since now I've seen two flaws in professional revolutionary parties: 1) they are gerarchical in some way so, if they take the lead, they tend to put that hierarchy to power and create some form of dictatorship (I pointed out what I think are the problems of dictatorship). 2) they tend to be expression of a single partition of the society and not to understand the needs of the others, even when they pursue their good (maybe I'm too influenced by the early hisotry of USSR here, and the failure to understand that soldiers-farmers who formed the bulk of the army just wanted to go back home and take the land with force).

I'm not sure where the future ideas/ideologies will be generated. New communication technologies will surely have a big part in it (blogs, youtube etc. have already some importance in politics).

[Madrigal]

Since now I've seen two flaws in professional revolutionary parties: 1) they are gerarchical in some way so, if they take the lead, they tend to put that hierarchy to power and create some form of dictatorship (I pointed out what I think are the problems of dictatorship).
Well, they have to be based on democratic organization on a local, regional and national level so as not to become bureaucratic leaderships. This did exist in the Soviet Union but it degenerated under Stalinism. It is obvious a bureaucratic caste will form if it's an extremely backwards country that needs the revolution to succeed in other more advanced countries for support. Otherwise internal and external reactionary forces begin to undermine first democracy and then material achievements - as I said, it's a race against time.

2) they tend to be expression of a single partition of the society and not to understand the needs of the others, even when they pursue their good (maybe I'm too influenced by the early hisotry of USSR here, and the failure to understand that soldiers-farmers who formed the bulk of the army just wanted to go back home and take the land with force).
Well, the peasantry is not the main class in conflict with the dominant class under capitalism. The peasantry's logical aim is to acquire land, as you say. The proletariat's logical aim in a revolutionary context would be to expropriate the means of production. That is how they can be socialized and intelligently organized to meet the population's needs instead of the individual desire for profits of a few people, who anarchically create and shut down factories as they please. Capitalism is a highly irrational system in that sense.

The Bolsheviks saw an ally in the poor peasantry, but not a leading force. The Bolshevik slogan for the peasants was to go and take the land for themselves. And this they did. Even though we all know that cultivating the land on a large scale, doing away with the individual divisions of land, would make the land more productive. But the Bolsheviks could not do that because the peasantry would turn against them. So, "take the land for youselves" was the slogan. Creating a whole new class of middle peasants who wished to administrate their own lands as they deemed fit, and not cooperate with the needs of the starving population in the cities. This lead to the New Economic Policy which allowed peasants to market some of their products. Leading to the creation of more conservative and reactionary forces (kulaks) to strain the socialist system.

It is not easy to secure another class as an ally, when the historical interests of that class are opposed to the those of the class in power. Especially when this ally makes up the overwhelming majority of the population. Trotsky said that if the revolution did not succeed in other countries (providing economic support to Russia), Russia would eventually suffocate, become ever more bureaucratic, and finally be re-converted to Capitalism.

For this, he was killed along with most of the Old Guard that had lead the Bolsheviks to power.

[thod]

The best thing that can be said about democracy is that ensures frequent changes of leadership. This enables the new lot to fix the problems the last lot created and blame it on them. This churning is about the only good thing going for it.

National democracy is simply a media show. You don't know the people or what they stand for. Its why Arnie gets voted for governator, people felt they knew him from his movies.

A much better system would be a tiered system. You vote for some local guy that you can get to meet. He could be on the local council. They in turn are able to vote someone into the next tier, some kind of regional assembly. Who in turn vote for the nationals. The advantage of this is you vote for someone competent and trust their judgment to vote for someone at the next level.

All that we have atm is people who do not understand or care about anything swamping the votes of those that do. Thus issues and policies do not matter one iota. Its all a theater show for the uneducated masses.

[Tocsin]

Do you think people are responsible, fair and good citizens in general? Or would giving power to them undermine state interests? Would they vote responsibly?

A good set of questions, which brought to mind again several thoughts from our founders worth considering:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
--Thomas Jefferson

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."
--James Madison

Also consider, if a democratic state is one where the people are the state, then how could giving power to the people "undermine state interests" since the people are themselves the state?

[Beery Swine]

I'm against pure democracy. All that is is mob rule. Enough people get together and decide that other people are unfit for the first people's idea of what society should be, vote on the issue, and then you have legal genocide. Pure democracy without something else (like the Bill of Rights, fer instance) is tyranny by the majority on the minority.

[Madrigal]

tyranny by the majority on the minority.

Makes no sense. It can't be "tyranny" if the majority wants it. There is a unilateral element to tyranny in the first place. I'm in favor of the majority deciding over the minority. Otherwise, you believe everyone is inherently stupid - except yourself, conveniently - and that we need enlightened saviours to come and tell the majority how to do things. That's the psychology of oppression.

Who cares about the minority? The minority is now rich and powerful while the majority is poor and downtrodden. If the poor and downtrodden actually had a chance to decide, the world would become a very different place.

[Homini Lupus]

Makes no sense. It can't be "tyranny" if the majority wants it. There is a unilateral element to tyranny in the first place. I'm in favor of the majority deciding over the minority. Otherwise, you believe everyone is inherently stupid - except yourself, conveniently - and that we need enlightened saviours to come and tell the majority how to do things. That's the psychology of oppression.

Who cares about the minority? The minority is now rich and powerful while the majority is poor and downtrodden. If the poor and downtrodden actually had a chance to decide, the world would become a very different place.

Weighted vote about constitutional issues has been introduced to avoid political systems suiciding themselves as they did after WWI and turning into dictatorships. With weighted elections about fundamental laws you avoid the majority wiping out the rights of minorities. Obviously, if a system is all about denying rights to majorities it can only be only formally democratic (like the II Reich) but has some way to avoid dealing with the responsibilities towards the poor masses.

[Tocsin]

I'm against pure democracy. All that is is mob rule. Enough people get together and decide that other people are unfit for the first people's idea of what society should be, vote on the issue, and then you have legal genocide. Pure democracy without something else (like the Bill of Rights, fer instance) is tyranny by the majority on the minority.

Makes no sense. It can't be "tyranny" if the majority wants it. There is a unilateral element to tyranny in the first place. I'm in favor of the majority deciding over the minority...
Who cares about the minority?

I feel uncomfortable playing the scold, but as far as I'm concerned you are both very mistaken.

Democracy is a "government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them"... THE people... not some of the people... not even a majority of the people.

It brings up a thought which applied on another thread, and it applies as well here:

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression."
--Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

I will grant that there will always be a few - a very small few - such as sociopaths intent on committing murder, rape, and so on; or the delusional insane; who will end up having the "will of the majority" imposed on them, simply because a stable society cannot tolerate the free reign of the homicidally and criminally insane.

But for all other groups, made of individuals capable of exercising reason and sound judgment, it should be possible for a majority to construct a model of laws which does not infringe on the rights of any minority without reason, and for any minority to reasonably and willingly accept a structure of laws which does not make any unreasonable restictions of their rights.

What it boils down to is that if democracy is to succeed as a political form, reason, knowledge, and sound judgment must be the ascendant ideals of the society... above emotion... above faith... above tradition... above pride and chauvinism... and above greed and self-interest.

The reason democracy seems not to be an ideal form at this time is because we are clearly not living in an age of reason.

[Dreamer]

The majority of citizens are selfish creatures. They are swayed more by base animal concerns than genuine concern for the interest of the whole. They would rather see an obsolete government program or an unproductive industry continue to be subsidized even if it flies in the face of the nation's best interest.

Of course, if you do not have a coherent party to influence the masses when they are empowered, a party that has studied and analyzed history's lessons, and tested its program and members before these crucial moments, the big opportunity for Change could well be lost for decades. Once the masses are ready to fight, the system prepares to fight back, and it becomes a race against time. One side will lose. A coherent party cannot be born from one day to the next - so some people logically live to prepare themselves for these moments. That's a very coherent excuse,please remind me to contact you as advisor if I ever decide to take over a third world island and turn it into my own personal fiefdom er...Did I say fiefdom?I meant social laboratory!No wait! Worker's paradise... Yeah,that sounds much better.

[Calico]

Madrigal- as to the minority being rich and powerful, there are various types of minorities. Obviously homeless people constitute a minority, but they are hardly rich or powerful. What exactly would be accomplished by dehumanizing people because they belong to a specific class? Doing so resulted in the Reign of Terror, one of the major factors in the failure of the French Revolution. It makes more sense to go after the injust system than target a specific class. The goal should be to fix the system and re-integrate all the classes into it. The idea that something can never be tyranny if supported by a majority is equivalent to 'might makes right'.

One problem with democracies is that sometimes they work too well and then people get complacent. It's like bystander syndrome where everyone thinks someone else will fix things, only on a national level. Tocsin, I admire your ideals but the only way to get massive numbers of people to behave logically is by appeals to emotion, especially instant gratification. If it doesn't seem urgent, the issue will likely be given low priority. In some ways, I think this is an Age of Reason more than any before. The increase in population has meant the existence of more smart people than ever before, and the Internet has given them unprecedented contact with each other and with various sources of information. What would be required for you to consider something an Age of Reason? Would the Enlightenment meet your standards? (I do know the Enlightment is the Age of Reason, but arguments could be made that we're more reasonable/enlightened now than what people were then.)

[Julien]

We live in Plato's Republic not in a democracy. Plato believed democracy was doomed to fail.

"The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller

[Julien]

The two underlying principles of democracy are - that all members of society have equel access to power, and all members should enjoy universally recognised freedoms and liberties. If these two principles are fully implemented, it should lead to a balanced society. The hard part, is making sure it is.

A vote doesn't grant any access to power, and freedoms/liberties are arbitrarily granted by the state for the greater good. :)

[Homini Lupus]

The idea of democracy that Plato criticized was totally different from what we see as democracy. And the modern state comes from an evolution Plato didn't see. Even if we use the same words, our world is very different from that of the ancient times. Indeed we live under an élite, but that elite governs because it can organise itself better than the people they govern and gather their consensus.

[athenian200]

I think most of us agree that democracy is the most suitable system. A post in another thread inspired me to ask this question: Do you think people are responsible, fair and good citizens in general? Or would giving power to them undermine state interests? Would they vote responsibly?

I think that democracy is the best form of government during good years... it tends to prevent any one individual or group's interest from gaining too much power, which means people have more choice. It isn't efficient, but it leads to the most freedom. Ironically, because it results in mostly stagnation and keeps the government from doing much besides basic function, even though it does it wastefully.

The more uneducated, apathetic, and inculcated people become, though, the less effective democracy is, until it falls apart. Democracy is the best while it lasts, and it can do so for a long time... but it falls eventually.

[Shakyamuni]

I disagree with the OPs first assumption. Democracy is not the what I consider to be the most suitable system, at least not under the present circumstances.

My responses would be No. No. No.

Democracy is inefficient and based upon the false assumption that the electorate is smart and able to make a rational decision. Generally, people are short-sighted and apathetic. We simply don't care, and do not hold politicians accountable. It's essentially a 4 year dictatorship after the election is over. However, far worse than a dictatorship the leaders have to cater to special interest groups and a host of financial backers that tug on their loyalties.

[Canegrande]

I'm convinced that all governments are oligarchies no matter what they call themselves. Given the disparity of human human talents and the self-serving nature of man there is simply no way to avoid an oligarchy. Sure there are instances of democracy but no nation can survive as a democracy. Even some of the Founders, who themselves were largely landed gentry, held that their experiment would at some point result in a "natural aristocracy" based on merit and talent and weighed in on the fact that because of family and social ties that it would harden into what Jefferson termed an "artificial aristocracy" based on wealth and privilege. History has proven their assumption largely in the right as our representative system is now basically funded by our corporate aristocracy or as Lundberg termed it "finpols" whose interests generally trump those of the populace.
I think a return to the principles of the Constitution (i.e. smaller federal government, greater state and regional government, a weaker federal executive branch, etc.) would be as close to the principles of a democratic republic that a nation could reasonably sustain.