So, WTF is democracy anyway?

[Liar]

Amicus just made it clear in another thread that this place is jam-packed with intellectuals. I thought I'd take advantage of that. So, I'm gonna try this little thingy on you guys and see how it pans out

This is the condensed version of the theoretic introduction to my thesis work. The paper is about democracy in organizations and workplaces, and a method I devised to (at least approximately) measure it.

If you are bored enough to indulge me, read through the definitions below, and see if it's missing something essential, if it's crystal clear and complete, or if it's just plain moronic.

Cheerio and thanks in advance to the brave people who can't find anything else to do with their time.
/Liar

----

Democracy is:

Fair opportunity for individuals in a society to affect the issues that affects them.


Democracy (ideally) needs:

1. First of all, a community must adhere to and respect the following three principles for participation.

--> Rights - Every individual has the right to participate in desicion making in groups he belong to.
--> Equality - Every participant is treated as equal, no one individual has more say than another. (Uhnless that individual represents a group of individuals).
--> Freedom - Every individual is free to have, express and propagate any opinion without repression or fear of punishment.​

2. Actual participation. Not only must people have the right to participate, a significant amount of people must do it. And for that to happen the following is needed.

--> Motivation to participate - People need to experience a need to affect a certain issue, and also experience that their effort makes a difference.
--> Competence to partcipate - People need knowledge to form asn opinion, skill to communicate said opinion, and the knowledge of where, when and how they can do that.
--> Tolerance towards conflict - Those who participate must be prepared for negotiation or polarization between difgferent points of view, and not get immediately frustrated in the face of conflict.​

3. Collective desicion making needs an agreed upon democratic structure

--> Effective and equal participation - The practical means to debate, negotiate, vote et al, should be easily availble for all.
--> Agreed upon desicion criteria - Majority rule? Complete consensus? The group must agree when a desicion can be said to have been reached.
--> Understanding of the issue - Everyohne who wish must be given reasonable amount of time and the right information to read up on the issue.
--> Control over the agenda - Everyone have the right no not only decide on issues, but to affect what issues are brought up.
--> Inclusive participation - Everyone who is reasonably affected by an issue is automatically given the right to affect the desicion.​

4. Last but not least, desicions made accrding to the criteria above needs to be respected by the group and carried out according to the group's wish. Pretty fucking pointless otherwise.

----

 

[Recidiva]

I'm reading Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad."

His main concern is that "the masses" in a democratic system...can do a lot of wrong. And "democracy" needs to be accompanied by rule of law and social restrictions that encourage growth and not decline of standards.

Ultimately Americans are voting for lower taxes and declining standards often (education, health care)

Hitler was democratically elected. So was the Palestinian current government.

There are flaws to the system.

 

[Liar]

I'm reading Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad."

His main concern is that "the masses" in a democratic system...can do a lot of wrong. And "democracy" needs to be accompanied by rule of law and social restrictions that encourage growth and not decline of standards.

Ultimately Americans are voting for lower taxes and declining standards often (education, health care)

Hitler was democratically elected. So was the Palestinian current government.

There are flaws to the system.

True. This is hopefully covered in my (or rather Robert A Dahl's) criteria "Understanding of the issue". The masses too often makes too uninformed choices.

The list above is supposed to be the ideal democracy. Something that will never happen. Especially not in a group as big as a whole nation. but I think it's important to be able to pinpoint where in a certain situation the democracy failed.

 

[Pure]

it seems good to me, liar, although it's highly abstract. essentially it's government of the people, by the people and for the people.

note that your formulation may apply to an aboriginal tribe as much as a modern state like Sweden. so your abstraction from history may be a problem.

your formulation states it's to apply to the ideal; fine, but every democracy there ever was, has had its rich and poor, its shouters and its listeners, is leaders and its followers. so besides your abstraction, you'd do well to consider democracy as it actually exists in situations of inequality. in such situations no one individual has more say than another simply does not apply.

no doubt you will say that no situation is ideal; you're describing the 'ultimate democracy', which is an item like the [totally] 'just society.'

BUT if it were me, i'd add a section on *democratization*, i.e. the process of becoming democratic *as it has occurred in various nations and institutions.*

==
your formulations are reminiscent of Habermas. are you using him?

 

[xssve]

I'm reading Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad."

His main concern is that "the masses" in a democratic system...can do a lot of wrong. And "democracy" needs to be accompanied by rule of law and social restrictions that encourage growth and not decline of standards.

Ultimately Americans are voting for lower taxes and declining standards often (education, health care)

Hitler was democratically elected. So was the Palestinian current government.

There are flaws to the system.

Bullshit, the result of two stolen elections - it is, however, unsettling how easily people will sell out thier supposedly deeply held "core beliefs" for the sake of centripetal politics.

Nothing is perfect - would unelected governments have done any better?

All a government based on democratic principles does is keep the door open for improvements by protecting consensus formation - the have nots always outnumber the haves in pretty much any system, or do eventually, and justice and the rule of law benefit the have nots and even the have somes a lot more than it does the have most of it's.

This creates a statistical bias towards justice - so long as a consensus for same is allowed to form and seek expression - why so you think neo-cons are so hot about strict constructionism and Christian reconstruction?

In politics as well as capitalism, competition comes from the bottom up, not the top down - once on top, every regime seeks to freeze things into stasis, to prevent further change, to pre-emt competition threatening from below.

Our entire political, economic and legal systems are designed to prevent this from happening, and thus, assure constant regeneration from below, to keep things in a steady state of flux.

 

[Liar]

it seems good to me, liar, although it's highly abstract. essentially it's government of the people, by the people and for the people.

note that your formulation may apply to an aboriginal tribe as much as a modern state like Sweden. so your abstraction from history may be a problem.

It's abstract by intention, as well as detached from history. This is not primarily supposed to be used in places where "government" or "the people" are common terms. It could apply to companies, workplaces, classrooms... or tribes if you will. The situations you descrtibe, of power inequalitites (due to money, status, shout-willingness and other things are real world problems that the above ideal have to face. That's dealt with later in the paper.

But in a way, even those criteria are touched upon here, I think. For instance, the most common reason that one parson's opinion is worth more than others is representation. The CEO speaks for a company (and a company is a collection of individuals), the congressman speaks for a bunch of citizens. The celebrity speaks (in a roundabout and not very democratic way) for his fans (and will lose fans if he says things they think are fucked up).

your formulations are reminiscent of Habermas. are you using him?

Not a central figure but he's in there. Especially his descriptions of deliberative democracy. Main co-conspirators here are Robert A Dahl, Giuseppe di Palma and Jo Freeman (some quite interresting ideas on how to deal with the problem of "shouters and listeners" as you call them), and a bunch of organization theorists, Eugen Pusic and Frank Heller mainly.

 

[Liar]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm off to work. Will check in later to see if I have any "You're so full of it, Liar" posts.

 

[JamesSD]

Democracy is obviously giving the people of Nations the right to vote for the Government that supports the US and it's policies. If they vote in the wrong group, it's not democracy

Well, at least that's what every US administration since Eisenhower has defined it as.

 

[rgraham666]

Democracy is about balance. It's also the only system with the feedback mechanisms in place to achieve this balance.

Democracy's biggest problem is that it goes against human instinct.

Instinctually, we're apes. We form troops, large and abstract troops these days. We then form hierarchies in the troop and work to rise in the hierarchy. It's an unconscious process, entirely instinctual. And fundamentally elitist.

Democracy is a conscious process. As well it has the idea of equality built into it.

So human beings aren't very good at it, don't like it much and tend to fall back to elitist organizations. We're comfortable with those.

 

[Recidiva]

Bullshit, the result of two stolen elections - it is, however, unsettling how easily people will sell out thier supposedly deeply held "core beliefs" for the sake of centripetal politics.

Nothing is perfect - would unelected governments have done any better?

All a government based on democratic principles does is keep the door open for improvements by protecting consensus formation - the have nots always outnumber the haves in pretty much any system, or do eventually, and justice and the rule of law benefit the have nots and even the have somes a lot more than it does the have most of it's.

This creates a statistical bias towards justice - so long as a consensus for same is allowed to form and seek expression - why so you think neo-cons are so hot about strict constructionism and Christian reconstruction?

In politics as well as capitalism, competition comes from the bottom up, not the top down - once on top, every regime seeks to freeze things into stasis, to prevent further change, to pre-emt competition threatening from below.

Our entire political, economic and legal systems are designed to prevent this from happening, and thus, assure constant regeneration from below, to keep things in a steady state of flux.

It's not about stolen elections.

The point is that the desires of the majority do not always serve the needs of the majority in a responsible manner. Americans are being asked what they want, instead of Americans being asked to consider what they should do responsibly.

It's a bit at times like asking the kids to elect their own babysitter. Are they going to elect someone who makes them go to bed on time, do their homework, and grow up? Or will the majority elect someone who lets them eat whatever they want, stay up all night and trash the house?

The American system has lost its model of responsibility and is now flat-out poll driven, where the most ridiculous emotional and controversial models of discourse become the main political conversation. We are not in a responsible phase.

Many people voted for this particular baby sitter.

I dislike the idea that a populace behave like children and the leaders need to be disciplinary, but in this case...it works.

Americans have been manipulated through fear and distrust by BOTH sides of the political fence. There are no conciliatory voices. There's a great deal of blame. And the law has taken a pounding because the corruption permitted is insane.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Democracy is a faith, and a sophisticated one. It is a vision of broad commitments to personal liberty and individual responsibility; popular sovereignty and political equality (meaning all adults have the right to participate and count as equals); faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs; and an emphasis on procedural reliability and stability, the rule of law, and regulation of authority. It is a vision of a self-chosen life.

Democracy is much more than a Constitution, a marble building and polling booths. It is a multilayered set of institutions (broadly defined), and habits:

Democratic political life is ordered by institutions. The polity is a configuration of formally organized institutions that defines the setting within which governance and policy making take place. An institution is a relatively stable collection of rules and practices, embedded in structures of resources that make action possible -- organizational, financial and staff capabilities, and structures of meaning that explain and justify behavior – roles, identities and belongings, common purposes, and causal and normative beliefs (March and Olsen 1989,1995). Institutions are organizational arrangements that link roles/identities, accounts of situations, resources and prescriptive rules and practices. They create actors and meeting places and organize the relations and interactions among actors. They guide behavior and stabilize expectations. Specific institutional settings also provide vocabularies that frame thought and understandings and define what are legitimate arguments and standards of justification and criticism in different situations (Mills 1940). Institutions, furthermore, allocate resources and empower and constrain actors differently and make them more or less capable of acting according to prescribed rules. They affect whose justice and what rationality has primacy (MacIntyre 1988) and who becomes winners and losers. Political institutionalization signifies the development of distinct political rules, practices and procedures partly independent of other institutions and social groupings (Huntington 1965). Political orders are, however, more or less institutionalized and they are structured according to different principles (Eisenstadt 1965).
from The logic of appropriateness
James G. March Johan P. Olsen
http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp04_9.pdf

 

[Lisa Denton]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm off to work. Will check in later to see if I have any "You're so full of it, Liar" posts.

You're so full of it, Liar.

In a good way, of course.

Democracy means sooo many different things to sooo many different people but yes, you got the essence in a bare-bones condensed version.

Democracy gave us the right to screw things up royaly in america, but democracy gives us the right to try it again, and maybe if we elect Paris Hilton for president, with Condi Rice as her lesbian VP, Martha Stewart as head of Treasury, Oprah Winfrey as our foriegn relations advisor and Rush Limbaugh as Secretary of Defense, we can at least start doing better.

 

[Pure]

Another thought.

liar said,

3. Collective desicion making needs an agreed upon democratic structure
--> Effective and equal participation - The practical means to debate, negotiate, vote et al, should be easily availble for all.
--> Agreed upon desicion criteria - Majority rule? Complete consensus? The group must agree when a desicion can be said to have been reached.
--> Understanding of the issue - Everyohne who wish must be given reasonable amount of time and the right information to read up on the issue.
--> Control over the agenda - Everyone have the right no not only decide on issues, but to affect what issues are brought up.
--> Inclusive participation - Everyone who is reasonably affected by an issue is automatically given the right to affect the desicion.

4. Last but not least, desicions made accrding to the criteria above needs to be respected by the group and carried out according to the group's wish. Pretty fucking pointless otherwise.


I think this is not bad, and it leaves aside the issues of what happens to minorities after they are listened to. You could, of course, define democracy as respecting minorities [those with minority views], but I think that would be a mistake. (I believe Roxanne, above, makes this mistake, trying to have the term embrace too much.) Democracy is about the people's will, and their participation in implementing it.

If that's the case, "democracy" is just *part* of the answer to 'what's needed and desirable in society?' A democracy can treat minorities, and those of minority views rather badly, indeed jail them, kill them, etc.

So, besides ideal democracy, one needs the quality of "respecting rights of those with minority views," who do NOT agree with the group's decision and are adversely affected by its carrying out of that decision. Besides democracy, one needs concepts of 'human rights' and 'justice.'
Note that the concept of "parliamentary democracy" (or representative democracy or constitutional democracy) still does not do the trick, for the US Congress voted to inter the Japanese Americans, regardless of their patriotism.

 

[R. Richard]

Democracy is:

Fair opportunity for individuals in a society to affect the issues that affects them.


Democracy (ideally) needs:

1. First of all, a community must adhere to and respect the following three principles for participation.

--> Rights - Every individual has the right to participate in desicion making in groups he belong to.
--> Equality - Every participant is treated as equal, no one individual has more say than another. (Uhnless that individual represents a group of individuals).
--> Freedom - Every individual is free to have, express and propagate any opinion without repression or fear of punishment.​

----

Under NO type of government is an individual free to have, express and propagate any opinion without repression or fear of punishment.

An individual isn't allowed to yell fire in a movie theater, even if the individual feels that it is a good thing [criminal law.]
An individual isn't allowed to publically express the opinion that his neighbor is a cheap whore [civil law.]
An individual isn't allowed to publically express the opinion that his neighbor is a sneak thief [civil law.]

Along with the freedoms of democracy come responsibilities.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . I think this is not bad, and it leaves aside the issues of what happens to minorities after they are listened to. You could, of course, define democracy as respecting minorities [those with minority views], but I think that would be a mistake. (I believe Roxanne, above, makes this mistake, trying to have the term embrace too much.) Democracy is about the people's will, and their participation in implementing it.

If that's the case, "democracy" is just *part* of the answer to 'what's needed and desirable in society?' A democracy can treat minorities, and those of minority views rather badly, indeed jail them, kill them, etc.

So, besides ideal democracy, one needs the quality of "respecting rights of those with minority views," who do NOT agree with the group's decision and are adversely affected by its carrying out of that decision. Besides democracy, one needs concepts of 'human rights' and 'justice.'
Note that the concept of "parliamentary democracy" (or representative democracy or constitutional democracy) still does not do the trick, for the US Congress voted to inter the Japanese Americans, regardless of their patriotism.

My very broad description is not "mistaken," it's just - very broad, encompassing all the habits and shared meanings that are required to go beyond just mob-rule, or the limited concept of "majority rules" with all its two-wolves-and-sheep-vote-for-dinner implications. I'm trying to capture the full meaning that "democracy" has for those in the west, which involves a system that addresses the various shortcomings of pure majority-rule that have already noted in this thread. Current events highlight the need to sharpen our thinking about what we really mean when we say, "democracy."

 

[Pure]

rox, i do not see any reason to use 'democracy' in a way that tries to capture everything one might like to see in "good government." can you give one?

i'd rather say that the western nations, besides being 'democratic,' have a number of other characteristics in the way government is run, and the way people in society are treated by others, the majority, and those in power. thus, rather than say it's undemocratic for the US government to have forced native persons onto reservations, as per the laws of Congress, i'd say it's unjust or unfair or inhumane.

 

[Liar]

Under NO type of government is an individual free to have, express and propagate any opinion without repression or fear of punishment.

An individual isn't allowed to yell fire in a movie theater, even if the individual feels that it is a good thing [criminal law.]
An individual isn't allowed to publically express the opinion that his neighbor is a cheap whore [civil law.]
An individual isn't allowed to publically express the opinion that his neighbor is a sneak thief [civil law.]

Along with the freedoms of democracy come responsibilities.

Indeed. In order for any society to function, there are always restrictions and exceptions to those principles I mentioned.

Now, I wouldn't call yelling fire to express an opinion, but I get what you're saying. And i guess I wasn't specific enough, or it got lost in translation from Swedish, but I'm talking about proposed courses of action whithin a by the group agreed upon framework (for a ssociety, this framework is the laws).

And I do believe I'm free to say that my neighbour is a cheap whore. If she indeed sells fornication and I believe she charges considerqably below market value. If not, i'm not expressing an opinion: I'm lying.

But anyhoo... If we look at freedom of speech, it IS restricted. For instance, there are things you can't say or do in many countries because they are considered "undemocratic". Try walking around with a nazi swastika in Germany and see what happens. Try to suggest in a public forum that we should kill all Eskimos, and you might find yourself at the short end of the legal stick.

Or if we look at inclusion, we also find restrictions. Who gets to participate? A foreign citizen can't vote in out elections, even if he lives and works and pays taxes here. Niether can a child, even though it most certainly are affected by the desicions being made. This is because ourt societies norms say that it's not reasonable that a minor can make well informed choices. But in other places, kids DO get to participate. to exclude them from the desicion making in a youth club would kind of kill the idea of that organization.

 

[Remec]

An individual isn't allowed to publically express the opinion that his neighbor is a cheap whore [civil law.]
An individual isn't allowed to publically express the opinion that his neighbor is a sneak thief [civil law.]

Along with the freedoms of democracy come responsibilities.

I agree it wouldn't be responsible, or prudent, to do either of those things, but if you had the documentation to show that your neighbors were a cheap whore or a sneak thief, then you could get away with saying so. (Of course, I suppose if you had proof then it wouldn't be your opinion, so nevermind.)

 

[Liar]

If that's the case, "democracy" is just *part* of the answer to 'what's needed and desirable in society?' A democracy can treat minorities, and those of minority views rather badly, indeed jail them, kill them, etc.

It can. If it is a democracy based on the majority principle. If it's based on consensus, it can't. However a consensus democracy with it's veto right for each and everyone runs the risk of never getting anything substantial or radical done. Case in point, the UN security council.

But yes, most nations, town councils, board rooms et al are run by majority. That's why societies (even corporative boards) as a complement to democratic structure, also have things like constitutions, and the institutions Rox mentioned. They are there to prevent the majority rule to, in a way, corrupt itself.

In a situation where a new democratic structure is needed, say for instance a workgroup of nurses at a hospital who have been given the right to decide their own schedules, one must choose the form of desicion criteria (majority, vetoes, negotiation) that is most suited for the situation. In that hospital, I'd suggest that majority rule would be stupid, because those people will have to work together every day. The tyrrany of the 51%, and the conflicts that can cause could be worse for the group than the benefit of being given control of the schedule. Better then that the boss set the schedules and all the nurses can unite in hating the boss (that's what he gets payed the big bux for). So there, a consensus model is essential.

On a larger scale, like in the governing of a nation, anything but a representative congregation deciding with majorities, is just too damn impractical.

 

[rgraham666]

Here's a little speech from Edmund Burke on the duties and obligations of the peoples' representatives in a democracy.

Interesting reading, sadly forgotten about.

 

[gauchecritic]

I'd argue with point two as it goes against the oft voiced definition; One manne vote.

You may argue that thoughtful abstention is voting, but the vast majority of abstentions (in Britain at least) are the result of apathy, which you do partly address with motivation. It may not be a part of the remit but, personally I'd make it illegal not to vote or at the very least have a method of voting which requires the least effort.

If 25% of the electorate don't vote and a decision is made by a simple majority of those that do then the vote is actually won by a de facto minority regardless of how those 25% might have voted. (No vote is a vote against) (so in actual fact all presidents and all governments are, by definition, voted in by minorities as second place candidates are always willing to point out.)

I don't recall any mention of wording either. A vote implies a proposition and as you well know, what a proposition implies isn't necessarily what it means or results in. A family proposition might be: We can afford one pet, shall we buy a dog? But maybe that's out of the remit too.

On last thing (which may have relevance or not) What about decisions made by a majority in one place affecting the rights and freedoms of those in another?

Building a damn. Playing music in your flat until 12 midnight. Disposal of toxic waste.

 

[xssve]

It's not about stolen elections.

It's a bit at times like asking the kids to elect their own babysitter. Are they going to elect someone who makes them go to bed on time, do their homework, and grow up? Or will the majority elect someone who lets them eat whatever they want, stay up all night and trash the house?
...
Americans have been manipulated through fear and distrust by BOTH sides of the political fence. There are no conciliatory voices. There's a great deal of blame. And the law has taken a pounding because the corruption permitted is insane.

Point taken, but I believe if you want to trace the bug back to the original source, it's about political influence, who has and who doesn't - in a social value system where wealth is the value that trumps all others, then wealth, not ideas or principles are going to have the advantage - free speech vs. paid speech.

Even if you're sypathetic to principle, it's not goingto get you into congress unless you're independently wealthy enough to fund your own campaign - and there again, wealth triumphs over principle.

Republicans resist campaign finance reform on the principle that it's "free speech", when in fact it distorts the "marketplace of ideas" by establishing monopolies of political influence like agribusiness or pharma through sheer collective financial clout, to which the majority of congress on both sides of the aisle are dependent for re-election.

The individual voice is crowded out by financial collectives in such a system, the only voice you have is your vote, and they'll promise you anything to get it.

They call this "politics", it's been going on for a while.

 

[rgraham666]

In other words the wealthy are using a refined version of an old fascist and Marxist tactic; shouting their opponents down.

Only now it's money doing the shouting.

 

[Recidiva]

Point taken, but I believe if you want to trace the bug back to the original source, it's about political influence, who has and who doesn't - in a social value system where wealth is the value that trumps all others, then wealth, not ideas or principles are going to have the advantage - free speech vs. paid speech.

Even if you're sypathetic to principle, it's not goingto get you into congress unless you're independently wealthy enough to fund your own campaign - and there again, wealth triumphs over principle.

Republicans resist campaign finance reform on the principle that it's "free speech", when in fact it distorts the "marketplace of ideas" by establishing monopolies of political influence like agribusiness or pharma through sheer collective financial clout, to which the majority of congress on both sides of the aisle are dependent for re-election.

The individual voice is crowded out by financial collectives in such a system, the only voice you have is your vote, and they'll promise you anything to get it.

They call this "politics", it's been going on for a while.

I don't think there's a "source" here other than human nature, which adapts often to create corruption in a system of government.

Leading and governance requires exceptional people.

The combination of democracy and capitalism that has resulted, is not ideal. There are many positive things about it, but it requires other elements.

The value of the richest and the most popular, the loudest and the most willing to go dirty early on, needs to be replaced with a value that reflects values that will support things in serious danger that fall through the cracks of such systems. Fiscal responsibility, education, infrastructure, socially functioning government programs.

 

[xssve]

I don't think there's a "source" here other than human nature, which adapts often to create corruption in a system of government.

True, except that we're talking specific cases here.

Leading and governance requires exceptional people.

Alos true to some extent, although I fail to see how a dictatorship of the minority is any more desireable that a dictatorship of the majority, in the most generla sense. It is often only the exceptionally ambitious who rise to prominence.

The combination of democracy and capitalism that has resulted, is not ideal. There are many positive things about it, but it requires other elements.

Such as?

The value of the richest and the most popular, the loudest and the most willing to go dirty early on, needs to be replaced with a value that reflects values that will support things in serious danger that fall through the cracks of such systems. Fiscal responsibility, education, infrastructure, socially functioning government programs.

I agree entirely, I'm only wondering how you propose this be accomplished?

Historically speaking, activism is the only option under these conditions.