Democracy

[rgraham666]

I'm posting this because someone's sig has been gnawing at my mind since I first saw it.

DEMOCRACY An existential system in which words are more important than actions. Not a judgemental system.
Democracy is not intended to be efficient, linear, logical, cheap, the source of absolute truth, manned by angels, saints or virgins, profitable, the justification for any particular economic system, a simple matter of majority rule or for that matter a simple matter of majorities. Nor is it an administative procedure, patriotic, a reflection of tribalism, a passive servant of either law or regulation, elegant or particularly charming.
Democracy is the only system capable of reflecting the humanist premise of equlibrium or balance. The key to its secret is the involvement of the citizen.

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

OK. I feel better now.

 

[cantdog]

its citizens

There was a course called Civics when I came up through school. I don't see it now. Is that significant as an indicator of erosion of democracy?

cantdog

 

[Somme]

'The key to it's secret is the involvement of the citizen.'

..........................................!
Hi Cant & rg.......
Good for this to be presented simply. I'll be watching what folk have to say.

 

[Somme]

post².........soddit

 

[Pure]

Did Saul actually say, "the key to it's secret..." ?

 

[snooper]

The problem with democracy, and especially with the imposition of democracy in some countries, is one which can be summed up as "tribalism". I do not use this in the strictly racial sense, but in the sense of tightly knit communities.

Some examples are Northern Ireland, where two communities are bitterly opposed on a basic item (rule from Dublin or London) and have formed, over the years, ghettos where children are educated separately in flagrantly biased schools. They are taught from birth that their community is right and the others are evil.
No politican can convice more than a handful of the opponents that they are wrong, so the only way to win an election is to take the long view and outbreed the other side.

A similar problem exists in many African states, which were defined by outsiders drawing lines on maps, and not by any natural geographic or demographic boundaries. Political parties then form entirely on tribal lines, and members of a particular tribe will always vote for their own tribe's candidates.

This means that political debate about the economy, foreign policy, etc cannot have any effect on the result of an election, and hence democracy cannot work.

Consider what would happen in the USA if the South African system prevailed and there were three main parties, Hispanic, negro, and white, to put them in alphabetical order. There would be a guaranteed majority for one party at every election for the forseeable future.

Of course, some groupings in such "tribal" areas have been known to decide to "adjust" the balance by force. That is known as "ethnic cleansing".

No, my friends, democracy is not perfect. It works only in relatively homogeneous societies, where electoral choices can be made on policy grounds. Even in the Mother of Parliaments, the Socialists lay claim to represent Asians and other immigrant communities; the first step down the slippery road to purely racial parties has been taken.

 

[Clare Quilty]

The key to it's secret is the involvement (I would add and evolvement) of the citizen

As Melancholy Dane soliloquized, "Aye, there's the rub."

 

[Pure]

What's missing in Saul and in other postings is any kind of definition of the term. For instance can there be democracy without (contested) elections?

 

[cantdog]

imposition

Actually, you know, I'm not that vitally concerned with the imposition of democratic institutions upon other societies.

Frankly, I doubt that our government cares too much about it, either.

No, I think we have to act fairly nippily to return our own democracy to working order. We have never been all that homogeneous a society, and that sort of thing is always a barrier to understanding. It causes artificial divisions, and some real ones, too, in a society. For example, I have nothing against Cuban Americans, but I was on the other side from the Florida enclave of them about the issue of reopening Cuba. That may be a cultural divide, but it also reflects a real difference in the agenda.

Uniform society or no, I find democratic values and democratic instituitions to be important. For Saul's reasons, and for others.

cantdog

 

[Clare Quilty]

Consider what would happen in the USA if the South African system prevailed and there were three main parties, Hispanic, negro, and white, to put them in alphabetical order. There would be a guaranteed majority for one party at every election for the forseeable future.

If you eliminate the Latino and African American parties from this supposition, you are left with the political reality of The United States. There is a quaranteed majority for one party, i.e., the rich white guy party, at each and every election-- as the most casual examination of the demographic makeup of the Senate will confirm. Tribalism too, it would seem, is alive and well in the minds of the American electorate. The Republican party, oddly inspired by democrat George Wallace, has effectively tapped into this tribalism over that last 25 years. I would hazard that in many elections this has been a greater delimiter than class, region or economic self-interest. Why else would union factory workers have ever voted for the likes of Reagan and Bush?

 

[cantdog]

I was in a union shop. The "National" endorsed Reagan, but the rank and file did not. Most of the Republican voters were that way for gun control issues or some other fluffy social issue.

The national lobbying office of the unions in the country is ordinarily corrupt and irrelevant. They have to be maneuvered into a corner before they give a shit about even the most urgent local contests. But the local union itself is a godsend.

Said the atheist.

And they endorsed Reagan because they were corrupt and irrelevant, not because they were stupid. Or white guys. In my view. I think we have more of a monetocracy right now: one dollar, one vote.

cantdog

 

[Clare Quilty]

And they endorsed Reagan because they were corrupt and irrelevant, not because they were stupid. Or white guys. In my view. I think we have more of a monetocracy right now: one dollar, one vote.

I was referring to the original "Reagan Democrats" the blue collar Macomb County Michigan voters for whom the phrase was coined. This county (you'd be hard pressed to find a bigger union county anywhere in the world-- This is UAW country) which had always been a bastion of the Democratic Party, voted overwhelmingly for Reagan in 1984. Once elected, Reagan--as anyone could have predicted--set about trying to break the unions, weaken OSHA regulations and do just about everything else NOT in the interest of the working man. Racist sentiment in Macomb county is news to no one. This isn't a county on the vanguard of enlightened thought--this is after all the place that spawned both Eminem and Kid Rock. The only reason this is noteworthy is that, in allegiance to the Southern and Middle American tribalism that Wallace indentified and Reagan capitalized on, they expressed a total disregard for their own economic interests and the continuance of their way of life.

A Washington pollster, Stanley Greenberg, wrote a book in which this phenomenon figures, "Middle Class Dreams."

From the Boston Review
The population of the county is 97% White, and the Reagan Democrats he talked to were "all white." They "expressed a profound distaste for black Americans," believed Blacks "lacked virtue," and thought that "not being black was what constituted being middle class; not living with blacks was what made a neighborhood a decent place to live....These suburban voters...rejected out of hand the social-justice claims of black Americans ....They had no historical memory of racism and no tolerance for present efforts to offset it.

These are the same people who think that Bill O'Reilly is looking out for them ... LOL

 

[Svenskaflicka]

"Laws are for those who are already honest enough to behave according to them anyway."

And that's why democracy fails - because it gives everyone a fair chance to destroy democracy itself.

Words are words. They have power, they can seduce, but ultimately, they're just words. What matters is what meaning we put behind them.

Like the year when both the communists and the conservatives of Sweden both used the word FREEDOM as their slogan for the election. A nice word, a word that appeals to most voters - but they meant different things with it. The conservatives wanted freedom for all rich people to avoid paying taxes. The communists wanted freedom for all young people to get an unexpensive place to live.

 

[rgraham666]

Did Saul actually say, "the key to it's secret..." ?

No he said "the key to its secret..." I typed it wrong.

I think democracy is more of an attitude than a procedure. Are you willing to listen to and consider other points of view? Are you willing to speak your own? Are you willing to change your actions on the basis of new knowledge? Are you willing to accept not getting your own way all the time?

It's possible to have a democratic mind set in an authoritarian society. You won't live long but it's possible.

And I think you're part right when you mention the lack of civics cant. But it goes deeper than that. I remember reading somewhere that half of Americans are functionally or actually illiterate. It would be amazingly difficult to maintain a democracy with ignorance at these levels.

I've often thought that the biggest hurdle for democracy to overcome is biological. We humans are apes. So we tend to form into groups and then spend our time doing what our alphas tell us to do or conspiring to become alphas ourselves.

Democracy requires a lot more work than authoritarian systems, which is another reason democracies tend to fail.

 

[gauchecritic]

Isn't the intent of democracy that it will always try to destroy itself?

Somebody famous said something along the lines of "It is the duty of every citizen to question (challenge?) the state."

I can't see how equilibrium comes into any question concerning democracy. Equilibrium = stagnation and inevitably decadence.

'Three dots in a triangle' democracy has to be dynamic for it to succeed.

I've just been looking up reference for the fall of the Roman Empire and hopefully without derailing the thread entirely came up with Gibbons' 5 reasons for that occurrence.

First: Rapid increase of divorce, with the undermining of the sanctity of the home, which is the basis of society.

Second: Higher and higher taxes; the spending of money for bread and celebrations.

Third: The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more exciting and more brutal.

Fourth: The building of gigantic armaments, when the real enemy was within; the decadence of the people.

Fifth: The decay of religion; faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to guide it.

Sound familiar? or just really scary?

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Two tribes go to war

US politics.

Nadar my ass.

 

[hotchkiss]

Isn't the intent of democracy that it will always try to destroy itself?

Somebody famous said something along the lines of "It is the duty of every citizen to question (challenge?) the state."

I can't see how equilibrium comes into any question concerning democracy. Equilibrium = stagnation and inevitably decadence.

'Three dots in a triangle' democracy has to be dynamic for it to succeed.

I've just been looking up reference for the fall of the Roman Empire and hopefully without derailing the thread entirely came up with Gibbons' 5 reasons for that occurrence.

First: Rapid increase of divorce, with the undermining of the sanctity of the home, which is the basis of society.

Second: Higher and higher taxes; the spending of money for bread and celebrations.

Third: The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more exciting and more brutal.

Fourth: The building of gigantic armaments, when the real enemy was within; the decadence of the people.

Fifth: The decay of religion; faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to guide it.

Sound familiar? or just really scary?

Gauche

Sounds just like now in the U. K.

 

[rgraham666]

I can't see how equilibrium comes into any question concerning democracy. Equilibrium = stagnation and inevitably decadence.

Gauche

Saul uses the word equilibrium as a dynamic concept. An interplay of forces that moves back and forth around a centre point.

So it is with democracy, there are many forces at work, but democracy acts to balance them out.

Are things bad for business? (I mean really bad, as opposed to the usual whining) Then democracy can act to improve it.

Is business interfering with the well being of society? (As opposed to the usual whining) Then democracy can reel them in.

By being in constant movement, democracy can balance itself. And react to changing conditions.

I would challenge the idea that the Roman Republic fell from the forces you mention gauche. The Republic had vanished centuries before the Empire fell.

The main reason, I think, can be found in this aphorism of Robert A. Heinlein. "Roman mothers once told their sons, 'Come back with your shield or on it.' Later this habit declined. So did Rome."

This, I believe, is why we are failing. Once many of us did things for our society, now we do things only for ourselves and maybe our families. A society can't last long if too few contribute to it.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I’m not disagreeing with Gibbons, but I don’t think his five reason for the fall of Rome are germane to our present case.

Gibbon’s Five Reasons quoted by gauchecritic

First: Rapid increase of divorce, with the undermining of the sanctity of the home, which is the basis of society.

Whereas women, with their children, escaping abusive husbands who regularly kick the shit out of them, is the first sign of social deterioration.

Second: Higher and higher taxes; the spending of money for bread and celebrations.

I’ve seen damn little bread being bought with those taxes, and what little was bought is being cut back.

Third: The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more exciting and more brutal.

.
Many original sports were violent, often not ending until someone’s, or something's, death.

During the Middle Ages, most battle sports were tempered with a bit of caution, until deaths were merely incidental, rather than mandatory.

By the 1800's, blood sports like cock fighting and bear or bull baiting began to fall out of favor, because of their cruelty.

Throughout the 20th Century, changes in rules and equipment has tended to make all battle simulation sports less injurious.

In recent decades, the use of portable cameras and adapted microphones have increased the apparent violence, by moving the viewer from the wide angle of the stadium seats to the closeup of the television screen. That is why Jumbotrons are installed in stadiums, so the live spectators can see the closeup action on television.

Fourth: The building of gigantic armaments, when the real enemy was within; the decadence of the people.

Not getting 100 per cent behind dropping a shitload of ordinance on innocent women and children, to remove just one bad ruler from power is not actually a sign of decadence.

Fifth: The decay of religion; faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to guide it

I would not call the Religious Right mere form. On the other hand, it doesn’t have much to do with any actual faith – other than “We are right! Nobody who won’t become what we want them to become will be punished.” Far from losing touch with life, here is 'religion' trying to get the people by the throat once again, and controlling who may live, and how.

 

[Xelebes]

Just remember, the United States was never a democracy, rather a republic which may have similarities with a democracy but is still not a democracy. Canada is a confederation. Same goes for it too.

 

[Guest]

Christian religions in the U.S. (including our prez and many in the govt. and other nations and organizations) keep saying "the nuclear family" is the foundation for society, but a family is the least democratic unit I know, and rightly so; all children are bound to rebel and escape, it's part of the plan.

I honestly don't get democracy. It's just an idea and can only be practiced by willing participants (or victims). Single-parent families and gay marriage are proof that the nuclear family is a societal construct. Obviously it upsets those who believe in the ideal of democracy.

just saying, Perdita

 

[cantdog]

It upsets democratic idealists to have what happen exactly?

The gay marriage and single parent family combination or the societal construct of nuclear families?

Or the religions and other groups?

Or what?

cantdog

In any case, I don't want the society run in any way like a family, or like a corporation either. Give me some say. I grew up and left home long ago, and I told my dad to fuck off. Anyone else says he's like my dad and I should knuckle under because of his authority, or hers, or whoever's, can similarly piss off. I don't like authoritarianism much in families either, but it is worth rebelling against in a society, too.

Doing it right now, baby.

 

[matriarch]

Christian religions in the U.S. (including our prez and many in the govt. and other nations and organizations) keep saying "the nuclear family" is the foundation for society, but a family is the least democratic unit I know, and rightly so; all children are bound to rebel and escape, it's part of the plan.

I honestly don't get democracy. It's just an idea and can only be practiced by willing participants (or victims). Single-parent families and gay marriage are proof that the nuclear family is a societal construct. Obviously it upsets those who believe in the ideal of democracy.

just saying, Perdita

What P said (she said it good, so I won't echo)

Mat

 

[Guest]

Or what?

It depends on the person or group's focus or belief. Bush & co. believe in the nuclear family and are disturbed by any other type. I'm not sure what makes up a democratic idealist, I only know I am not one.

Perdita

 

[cantdog]

What P said (she said it good, so I won't echo)

Mat

So like what did she say then?