Is Democracy All It’s cracked up to be?

[Huntn]

Peru's crisis is a cautionary tale for democracies | CNN

Peru is seeing some of its worst political violence in recent decades, but the grievances of protesters are all but new; they reflect a system that has failed to deliver for over twenty years.

edition.cnn.com

Is Democracy as an idea in trouble or has it always been in trouble?
Democracy is an ideal state of government right? That is until your populace split down the middle, both sides or multiple groups decide that cheat to win is the path to domination And personal advantage. The issue there is that corruption of standards where a self serving group can achieve advantages over another can happen in any system of governance.

The United States is as broken as it has even been, at least in my lifetime. That said, is there an alternative that could strive to offer civil and equal rights to everyone, achieving a balance between respecting personal freedoms and understanding that ultimate personal freedom is not realistically possible in the group dynamic? In other words the more people that live in close proximity to one another, the less freedom you will have. That is inevitable. You should not be able to project your personal standard onto others outside of your personal dwelling and even that has limits based on group moral standards.

You know I like ragging on the predominant Christian movements in the US, mostly evangelicals and this probably applies to Islam across the vast majority of the world, that when humans start pretending-fantasizing that there is a supreme being that encompasses and dictates morality, this is where the live and live standard takes a major hit, when human mouth piece assume the role of divine truth sayer, while making up their self serving shit as they go along, for fun, power, and control and in many cases these mouth pieces have their own dirty little secrets they hide away in the closet.

I find it very revealing and disturbing that these kinds of POS, who are not religious, or moral other than self servingly corrupt seem to be emerging and finding a home in today’s Republican Party. Donald Trump is or was the King of mentally ill, uneducated, stupid, self servingly and totally corrupt. Everything he touched withered. The GOP as a whole is not much better as long as they allow this kind of rot to control their group. Yet, the list of malfeasance get’s longer by the year, to our Nation’s detriment.

But as I’ve always said, the real issue here is pick your poison and the self serving, delving in fantasy, want their cake and eat it to, Koolaid drinkers back home that is totally focused on ME>WE.

 

[Nycturne]

Ultimately, democracy is not immune to being subverted and turned autocratic. Some folks seem to think it’s possible to be immune, and may even try to sell democracy as invulnerable, but it certainly isn’t. I’d look at it through the lens of: what system of government is most resistant to corruption and hostile takeover? Spreading authority around certainly helps slow things down and gives opportunities to heal sick governance. The problem becomes when instead of investing in anti-corruption measures, the rails start getting dismantled.

People could probably argue we should have seen this coming, as there’s been some ugly streaks in our history for a while now. Ones that we failed to address. I mean, Dr Seuss was trying to point out that the America First Committee sentiments aligned pretty closely with Nazi sentiments of the time. Yet because we did join the Allies and help in the war, we tend to sweep the unsavory bits under the rug.

As for today, one thing that concerns me is how folks are connecting on the internet these days, and how we see jargon popping up in various circles where ideology and radicalization happens on a global, rather than local, scale. It reminds me a lot of this particular cartoon from Seuss, as it seems we are seeing a couple movements that could very well be called a siamese beard. Movements that use the same jargon and dog whistles, but popping up in multiple countries at the same time.

 

[Huntn]

Ultimately, democracy is not immune to being subverted and turned autocratic. Some folks seem to think it’s possible to be immune, and may even try to sell democracy as invulnerable, but it certainly isn’t. I’d look at it through the lens of: what system of government is most resistant to corruption and hostile takeover? Spreading authority around certainly helps slow things down and gives opportunities to heal sick governance. The problem becomes when instead of investing in anti-corruption measures, the rails start getting dismantled.

People could probably argue we should have seen this coming, as there’s been some ugly streaks in our history for a while now. Ones that we failed to address. I mean, Dr Seuss was trying to point out that the America First Committee sentiments aligned pretty closely with Nazi sentiments of the time. Yet because we did join the Allies and help in the war, we tend to sweep the unsavory bits under the rug.

As for today, one thing that concerns me is how folks are connecting on the internet these days, and how we see jargon popping up in various circles where ideology and radicalization happens on a global, rather than local, scale. It reminds me a lot of this particular cartoon from Seuss, as it seems we are seeing a couple movements that could very well be called a siamese beard. Movements that use the same jargon and dog whistles, but popping up in multiple countries at the same time.

View attachment 21465

Yep, got to have scapegoats to blame to make it work.

 

[ArgoDuck]

My possibly naive view from a perspective as a social psychologist/sociologist - I’m no political theorist! - is that democracy is a solution to a group problem that arises when all its members - their strength, skills, talent and other resources - are necessary to its survival. In effect, for anyone to survive, everyone must survive. There needs to be a way for members to agree to a course of action even when many would be unhappy with it as if the group split, neither part would survive. (Of course I exclude here authoritarian or dictatorship based solutions).

Ideally, for democracy to prosper in this group setting every side should get its turn, and hence in classic two-party contests for who governs, both parties should rule more or less equally. One might even assert that in an ideal democracy each party alternates (one term at a time). This avoids the governing party ‘lurching’ too far in its preferred direction - so upsetting an approximate half of the group’s membership - and is also an indication that both parties are healthy and fully engaged. The party out of power in any term contributes to the democratic process by effective questioning of the governing party’s proposals and decisions, so keeping government action within the bounds of what most (on all sides) of the group’s membership can tolerate. Healthy democracy cannot please the few absolutely; instead it represents an optimization strategy of pleasing some well enough, and displeasing others but not too badly, and then those pleased and displeased getting to swap places at some reasonably near future time.

The modern problem - as I see it right now - is that the clause I highlighted above has been becoming less true for some time, and is not now true at all. Populations (groups) are large enough it is possible to conceive of worlds in which it’s no longer critical to overall survival that everyone’s resource be harnessed. Whole sections of the group - eg ‘minorities‘ - can be damned and excluded without jeopardy to the projected future well-being of the party that thinks this way, as for example seems to be a notable feature of extremist manifestos.

 

[exoticspice1]

Everything works but can only work as it's intended is there is no greed nor corruption in play.

Democracy can work perfectly with no corruption.

Monarchy can work with no large amount of greed or corruption.

Democracy IMO is not all it's cracked up to be. I prefer a Monarchy that is Democratic as in both Parliament and Monarchy can coexist this is because they can both balance each other. The monarch should also be given powers if he/she is of good moral and not a greedy nor corrupt person.

 

[Alli]

Democracy IMO is not all it's cracked up to be. I prefer a Monarchy that is Democratic as in both Parliament and Monarchy can coexist this is because they can both balance each other. The monarch should also be given powers if he/she is of good moral and not a greedy nor corrupt person.

This is why we have equal but separate branches of our government.

 

[NT1440]

Questions democracy, posts about Peru where the U.S. ambassador (“former” CIA) Lisa Kenna met with the head of the military days before the “totally not a military coup” occurs while the financial firms are actively campaigning to “invest” (read: steal) the natural resources of the country.

Come on.

 

[Herdfan]

Let's face it, ANY form of government is dependent on who the leaders are. Had a college professor once who told us the most efficient form is a benevolent dictator. But try to find one of those.

The problem in the USA is that the system was designed for citizen legislators, not a permanent legislative class. The theory was that someone would come serve a couple of terms in the House and then go back home. Rinse, Repeat. Our problem is that once someone gets to DC, they don't want to go back home. So they stay and we keep electing them. Our legislators, and that is both parties, are too far removed from the same experiences we have living our daily lives. I bet less than 10% know the price of eggs has almost tripled in the past 6 months.

 

[Nycturne]

The modern problem - as I see it right now - is that the clause I highlighted above has been becoming less true for some time, and is not now true at all. Populations (groups) are large enough it is possible to conceive of worlds in which it’s no longer critical to overall survival that everyone’s resource be harnessed. Whole sections of the group - eg ‘minorities‘ - can be damned and excluded without jeopardy to the projected future well-being of the party that thinks this way, as for example seems to be a notable feature of extremist manifestos.

Is this a modern problem though? The idea of an in group and out group as a social dynamic is pretty old. Either subjugating an out group to reap their labor, or genocide to free up the resources used by the out group is not remotely new. Evicting people that are deemed destabilizing to the group (right or not) is also not a new idea.

However, it is a lot harder for an out group today to carve out any sort of sovereign claim. So your choice is to try to fight for a seat at the table in your current nation state, or find some other nation state willing to take you in. That changes the dynamic considerably.

I’d also concede that how we define out groups changes over time as the society changes over time.

The problem in the USA is that the system was designed for citizen legislators, not a permanent legislative class. The theory was that someone would come serve a couple of terms in the House and then go back home. Rinse, Repeat.

I’d argue this isn’t a new problem either, since we started out with these “citizen legislators” being wealthy landowners who could afford to have their lands overseen by a proxy while they were spending time as legislators. Citizens who didn’t have that luxury didn’t have the opportunity.

The difference now is that politician itself is the job. I’m not sure I’d feel much better if we had a bunch of corporate CEOs cycling through today.

 

[NT1440]

You can have a democracy, or you can run an empire. Pick one.

The fact that most people don’t consider the US to run a global empire masked behind “alliances” (where we have a say in what those countries do and how they relate to other nations) should tell you the state of democracy in the world.

All the rest of this discussion is just missing the forest from the trees.

 

[exoticspice1]

This is why we have equal but separate branches of our government.

Does it help if the supreme court members is picked by the ruling party and they stay in power until they die or resign??

Mmm sounds like a Monarchy to me.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

In the US at least, democracy isn’t the issue. It’s gangster capitalism and the government completely captured by the wealthy and corporations. And it is just that simple. Anybody claiming it’s a lot more complex probably has something to lose if they admitted to the reality. “It’s complex” is only used as an excuse to not do a damn thing for those who aren’t wealthy. When it comes to the massive welfare provided to those at the top there’s not even a sneeze length’s pause to hesitate on that one. Over the last decade literally trillions of dollars have been funneled from the bottom to the top. But hey, build your goddamn wall and think that’s going to fix things.

The only issue with democracy in the US is that its falsely used to describe what we live in, and I imagine the same issue exists all over the world.

 

[exoticspice1]

In the US at least, democracy isn’t the issue. It’s gangster capitalism and the government completely captured by the wealthy and corporations. And it is just that simple. Anybody claiming it’s a lot more complex probably has something to lose if they admitted to the reality. “It’s complex” is only used as an excuse to not do a damn thing for those who aren’t wealthy. When it comes to the massive welfare provided to those at the top there’s not even a sneeze length’s pause to hesitate on that one. Over the last decade literally trillions of dollars have been funneled from the bottom to the top. But hey, build your goddamn wall and think that’s going to fix things.

The only issue with democracy in the US is that its falsely used to describe what we live in, and I imagine the same issue exists all over the world.

This issue exists in every democracy in the world. The only place it does not exist is absolute monarchies but those have other issues.

I would say there is no perfect political system but democracy is not the worst as there are worse systems

 

[ArgoDuck]

Is this a modern problem though? The idea of an in group and out group as a social dynamic is pretty old.

You’re right to see in- and out-group as an implication of what I outlined, but - i didn’t state it clearly - I’m starting at a much earlier point in our social evolution, when that kind of split is neither desirable nor even possible, for survival reasons. By ‘modern’ I probably mean ‘socially complex’, and by that i mean any ‘large’ population of the last few thousand years.

Incidentally, in my field in- and out-group ideas are recent, dating from Henri Tajfel’s work in the 1970s, and kind of a logical outgrowth of (e.g.) Sherif’s 1936 ‘discovery’ of conformity (majority influence) effects, and then Moscovici’s 1969 completion of the puzzle with his uncovering of minority influence. One might have expected social psychology would have started with the group, but it pretty much didn’t!

One might also conclude, if indeed these ideas are "pretty old", that my field is…well, not very advanced!

Either subjugating an out group to reap their labor, or genocide to free up the resources used by the out group is not remotely new. Evicting people that are deemed destabilizing to the group (right or not) is also not a new idea.

Great point, one i’ve thought about a lot. It’s a ‘solution’ - one pursued vigorously in societies everywhere today - to attain wealth in any fundamentally poor society by simply denying it to a sufficient proportion of one’s population. That is, define elites that ‘deserve’ power and wealth, which implicitly constructs out-groups that don’t.

i like your use of the term "deemed" as one can argue out-groups arise as deliberate acts, precisely to pursue this hoarding. There are ample suggestions though that these (discrimination, stereotyping) are outcomes of our cognitive limitations, and so that they’ve always been present. However, while i think these limitations are a large factor in social behaviour i think deliberate construction in modern settings of the last few thousand years explains it better.

Essentially, our brain limitations have more effect as populations become large, but larger populations usually also mean resource problems, and hence solutions to this are needed (so empires, democracies etc all interwoven with lower level ‘solutions’ such as elites). Alas, we’re now in the realm of non-linear dynamics (hence my ‘socially complex’ above), where problems escalate exponentially and even tiny differences (eg Tajfel’s mere labelling of groups) become decisive.

However, it is a lot harder for an out group today to carve out any sort of sovereign claim. So your choice is to try to fight for a seat at the table in your current nation state, or find some other nation state willing to take you in. That changes the dynamic considerably.

Great point. Indeed…

I’d also concede that how we define out groups changes over time as the society changes over time.

Sure, but that‘s circular. What stakes and agendas, resource cooperations and competitions, and so on drive this change? That’s what’s interesting - for me anyway!

 

[lizkat]

Let's face it, ANY form of government is dependent on who the leaders are. Had a college professor once who told us the most efficient form is a benevolent dictator. But try to find one of those.

The problem in the USA is that the system was designed for citizen legislators, not a permanent legislative class. The theory was that someone would come serve a couple of terms in the House and then go back home. Rinse, Repeat. Our problem is that once someone gets to DC, they don't want to go back home. So they stay and we keep electing them. Our legislators, and that is both parties, are too far removed from the same experiences we have living our daily lives. I bet less than 10% know the price of eggs has almost tripled in the past 6 months.

Another problem in the USA is that the legislators usually don't know details of subject matter on which they need to legislate, and although the congressional research staffers provide a lot of technical info, the drafts of bills are often put together by industry lobbyists.

You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corporations do it instead.

This story was published in partnership with USA TODAY and The Arizona Republic. This story also appeared in USA TODAY Each year, state lawmakers across the U.S. introduce thousands of bills dreamed up and written by corporations, industry groups and think tanks. Disguised as the work of...

publicintegrity.org

 

[NT1440]

This issue exists in every democracy in the world. The only place it does not exist is absolute monarchies but those have other issues.

I would say there is no perfect political system but democracy is not the worst as there are worse systems

“Democracy” in other countries only counts until they choose something that threatens our corporate interests. Then the assassinations, coups, financial blackmailing (IMF), and demonizing if elected officials as “dictators” start.

We’re watching it live in Peru, and we killed the president of Haiti within the last two years (forget exactly when), democracy is only allowed to exist in other countries if it follows the rules of the economic order we put in place. If a country tries to nationalize its own resources instead of letting it be bought up and sold at a pittance to corporations, then it’s time for the same story of 75+ years of America’s defense of “democracy” to swing into action.

The problem is not “other countries”, there’s a gorilla in the room controlling the chessboard at the end of the day.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

This issue exists in every democracy in the world. The only place it does not exist is absolute monarchies but those have other issues.

I would say there is no perfect political system but democracy is not the worst as there are worse systems

We only live in the facade of a democracy. It's like identity politics of, err, politics. "I self-identify as a democracy. So you have to respect that." The vast majority of things, especially big issues, we don't get to vote on directly. Instead we get to vote on representatives who quickly get loaded into the lobbyist corruption rinse cycle and come out the other end issuing word salad answers to explain why they aren't going to do things that are popular or that they ran on.

To make things easier we have one political party who votes people in to break every plate and take a shit on the dinner table so the other party can go "This is why we can't have nice things." and inexplicably a large chuck of the population goes "Yeah, I guess that makes sense."

 

[KingOfPain]

There is a 1956 movie called The Teahouse of the August Moon, in which a US army officer tries to explain democracy to villagers on Okinawa after WWII (quote excerpt from IMDB):
Captain Fisby: Everybody is going to learn about demoracy.
[crowd speaks in Japanese]
Sakini: They say, "What is democracy?", boss. They know what rice is.
Captain Fisby: Yes, all right. Democracy is a system of self-determination. It's the right to make the wrong choice.
(I emphasized the relavant part. In the German dubbing it was actually changed to something like "You may even elect the wrong president", which I find somewhat prophetic.)

There are a lot of examples of democracy being reverted. Just picking two examples from Europe:
The French revolution lasted from 1789 to 1799 and removed the king. In 1804 Napoleon became emperor. Well done!
After WWI, in 1918, Germany became the Weimar Republic. In 1933 it took just one lousy law (the Ermächtigungsgesetz) to turn it into a dictatorship. Few people know that the Weimar constitution was actually officially still active until the end of WWII (1945).

I believe there were only very few real democracies, and even those are debatable, because women weren't allowed to vote.
I can only think of Ancient Athens and some cantons in Switzerland.

The democracy in the US is inherently flawed.
The Senate isn't a democratic representation, because each state has two senators, no matter how many people live there. And two states have no senators at all (Puerto Rico and D.C.; I believe for D.C: it was intentional, but now you have a lot of people there, who have no representation in the senate).
And the electors are an atavism of a time when communication over vast distances were difficult. It's strange when a candidate doesn't have the popular vote, but can still win the election...

The main problem is: After they are elected, most politicians do whatever they want, but seldom what they campaigned for.
But the voters still keep voting for the same politicians or parties, because they are simply used to it, no matter if they actually did anything positive for the voters.

A long time ago, I once heard an interview where an older woman was asked why she voted for Angela Merkel. The answer was, "She always has these fancy suits on."
I almost lost it...

 

[exoticspice1]

There is a 1956 movie called The Teahouse of the August Moon, in which a US army officer tries to explain democracy to villagers on Okinawa after WWII (quote excerpt from IMDB):
Captain Fisby: Everybody is going to learn about demoracy.
[crowd speaks in Japanese]
Sakini: They say, "What is democracy?", boss. They know what rice is.
Captain Fisby: Yes, all right. Democracy is a system of self-determination. It's the right to make the wrong choice.
(I emphasized the relavant part. In the German dubbing it was actually changed to something like "You may even elect the wrong president", which I find somewhat prophetic.)

There are a lot of examples of democracy being reverted. Just picking two examples from Europe:
The French revolution lasted from 1789 to 1799 and removed the king. In 1804 Napoleon became emperor. Well done!
After WWI, in 1918, Germany became the Weimar Republic. In 1933 it took just one lousy law (the Ermächtigungsgesetz) to turn it into a dictatorship. Few people know that the Weimar constitution was actually officially still active until the end of WWII (1945).

I believe there were only very few real democracies, and even those are debatable, because women weren't allowed to vote.
I can only think of Ancient Athens and some cantons in Switzerland.

The democracy in the US is inherently flawed.
The Senate isn't a democratic representation, because each state has two senators, no matter how many people live there. And two states have no senators at all (Puerto Rico and D.C.; I believe for D.C: it was intentional, but now you have a lot of people there, who have no representation in the senate).
And the electors are an atavism of a time when communication over vast distances were difficult. It's strange when a candidate doesn't have the popular vote, but can still win the election...

The main problem is: After they are elected, most politicians do whatever they want, but seldom what they campaigned for.
But the voters still keep voting for the same politicians or parties, because they are simply used to it, no matter if they actually did anything positive for the voters.

A long time ago, I once heard an interview where an older woman was asked why she voted for Angela Merkel. The answer was, "She always has these fancy suits on."
I almost lost it...

We need to mix meritocracy and democracy together.

 

[Huntn]

This issue exists in every democracy in the world. The only place it does not exist is absolute monarchies but those have other issues.

I would say there is no perfect political system but democracy is not the worst as there are worse systems

Democracy if not operating on a corrupt level = good if everyone gets a say, bad if we are divided down the middle or a majority wants to trash the minority. And remember democracy in itself is not nearly enough, a commitment to equal rights, and freedom to choose within reasonable limits (who decides that?) is a vital part of the big picture.

I’ll acknowledge that humans are the problem in every case a problem exists, that other than a benevolent dictatorship with a really, good and fair leader (unlikely), a democracy with personal freedoms, live and let live, plus equal rights/opportunity is the best we can hope for.

….and todays Republican Party is working overtime to create a sham Democracy by cheating, ignoring/pushing aside the standard of live and let live, legal equality, and equal opportunity. Unfortunately their focus is on maintaining white privilege in every way possible including trashing the Federal Govt.