Four questions about democracy

Remove all ads!

In honor of Mithrantir, a post dedicated to democracy! Strikes me that there are four problems in democratic theory that make it difficult to judge whether any country is ever truly democratic, in the ideal sense. I'll lay 'em out, and anyone who wants to take a swing at any of them is welcome.

1) Are people equally entitled and competent for politics?

Ideal democratic theory says "yes". But modern elective systems imply "no". If everyone is equal in a political sense, then it shouldn't matter who our representatives are. If we're totally equal, then we should be able to choose our leaders by random lot, like in ancient Athens. But today, instead, we elect leaders and judge them on their political wisdom and competence. If we agree that a few are better politically than others, then how is democracy different from aristocracy, except that democracy happens to be better at picking good leaders?

2) Is democracy rule FOR the people, or rule BY the people?

We'd hope that these go together, but they don't always. Theoretically, at its most extreme, a benevolent monarch could care for everyone equally, while a thin democratic majority could exploit a huge minority. Is democracy a means or an end? Is it ever OK to be antidemocratic in order to protect people from themselves?

3) Who gets to vote?

We decide votes by majority, but the majority of WHAT? Every society (so far) denies the vote to some part of its population. The US, for instance, doesn't let criminals, children, lunatics, foreign tourists, or illegal aliens vote - yet we still enforce the law on them. But if it's democratic to limit voting rights, then where do we draw the line? Two examples: Is the Catholic church "democratic" because the College of Cardinals holds votes? Was the US really "democratic" for the century before giving women the vote?

4) Is there any legitimate political grouping beyond individuals?

Is it ever "democratic" to count groups instead of individuals? In the last US presidential election, Bush won a majority of the states, but Gore won a majority of the individuals. Is it democratic for groups to outweigh individuals? What about ethnic groups? And if we care about individuals and not groups, then why should democracy stop at a national border? If there are so many transnational issues today, then why shouldn't Europeans and Asians be allowed to vote in America's elections? Non-Americans are people, too, and they're deeply affected by American decisions. Shouldn't "true" democracy be truly global?

 

Wow, maybe this should've been a poll.

No, Democracy is not perfect and certainly does not function perfecly. I, personally don't think it works half as well as it should.
So my answers are:
#1....No

#2....For the people

#3....Everyone. However only the rich or corporate vote counts.

#4....No

Maybe we should try Communism again, then again maybe not.

 

Thank you Grey for a thought provoking topic...I was getting sick of the Middle East

First, let's clear the air. Whenever the US is compared to an "ideal Democracy", our "Democratic" system of government rarely seems to comply with the standard. That's because the US is not a Democracy, it is a Representative Republic, founded on democratic ideals. Historically, true ideal Democracies have been notoriously bloody, inefficient and short-lived (yes, Mithrantir, I am aware of the durability of Athenian Democracy, yet even that could hardly stand Grey's four point test).

That being the case, if we care to place the US form of Republic against your litmus paper, the answers would have to be...

1. No. That much is obvious, as only one candidate is elected in the end...he/she either had the best platform, most charisma, most money or some other feature that made them preferable and "better" than the losers.

2. The US is very antidemocratic at times. We legislate laws that are for the good of society, yet limit the personal liberty of the individual. This is understood and accepted by most. You can't even get a drivers license without implied consent that you will submit to a sobriety test if stopped by a Law Enforcement Officer...failure to submit means automatic revokation. It is hoped, that the extent of anti-democratic action never extends too deeply into the realm of personal freedom...as is currently under debate via the Patriot Act.

3. It is the anti-democratic responsiblity of a democratic society to deny the vote to those who are incapable of exercising that responsibility. Valid citizenship should be a given. It was never right or democratic to deny the vote based on race or sex, but I think that we can all agree that the US has actually grown more Democratic since it's founding. The issue of a convicted prisoner is a little different...they have lost the vote as a punitive measure, which they regain with completion of their sentence...further comfirming that voting is a right wrapped in a privilege.

4. Yes. That is how our Constitution has established it, and I am content. History has shown that the electoral process has been a boon and bane to all political idealogies. I see no compelling need to change the system as it has not led to our destruction in over 200 years (don't pick that last statement apart, OK Chandos?).

Now, let's shift back, and answer the questions from the consideration of "True Democracy"...

1. Yes
2. By the people
3. I think that even "True Democracy" theoretically limits vote to of-age citizens.
4. No

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any True Democracy, other than some isolated communes, that has existed in history. If they ever did spring up in a flurry of idealogical glory, they were summarily enslaved by the very efficient, unfair, neighboring Monarchy!

Thanks for making me think, Grey.

 

First, I haven't spent much time thinking on this so I reserve the right to reverse any stupid opinions that follow and call you obtuse and other very bad names for misinterpreting my initial points.

To me, the most important question you asked was subsumed within another question: is democracy a means or an end? It seems to me that if people can't agree to an answer on this question then they are simply talking past one another. I am of the opinion that democracy is a means and not an end. This of course begs a larger question - what is the end? The answer to that question is, not surprisingly, unlikely to achieve a consensus. Truth is not a matter of consensus though (get it, this is a democracy thread, get it... oh nevermind) and since I know the truth allow me to enlighten you all. Don't disagree with me because I know the answer. The true end toward which all societies should strive is... oh, you guys aren't ready for that answer yet. Maybe when you're ready I'll deign to enlighten you. (how did my blustery pretensions work - were you gripping the edge of your desks in anticipation?)

So, since maybe coming up with "THE" end that is the end of all ends may not be easy maybe some ends could be agreed upon? I'm not up to that right now but I will say that one of the reasons I feel democracy is succesful is that diversification of power in politics, like diversification in stock purchases, strikes a pleasing balance between maximizing potential and minimizing risk. Hey, I like that analogy, and I just thunk it.

This weekend I got to meet Bo Jackson. I really am excited about that so I like to work it in and gloat wherever it is possible. While standing next to Bo it was readily apparent to me and all others who saw us (and there were lots who saw me chilling with Bo, let me assure you) that all men are not created equal. I see no reason why it should be surprising in this world where we clearly see that men are not equal, that some men are better able to lead in a political sense than others. So, no, not all men are equally gifted for politics but that's as unsurprising to me as saying I'm not as equally qualified to be a dual-sport superstar as Bo was.

Are all men equally 'entitled for politics?' I'm interpreting this to mean: do all men have an equal right to be involved in politics? To me, the answer is yes. There is a question of what they are entitled to. They are entitled to run for office and they are entitled to vote but that doesn't mean that ANYONE is entitled to hold office.

You ask: if we think that some are better politically than others how is democracy better than aristocracy? If democracy is a means and not an end then the answer is that democracy is better than aristocracy because it has worked better. Works better at what? I've taken a pass at this point on what the ends are - unlike Bo I'm a sissy. Not particularly romantic but in my opinion true.

Your second major question is a false dichotomy, which you recognize. If democracy is a means and not an end, then your question of whether it is ever OK to be undemocratic to achieve an ends is answered with a YES. The bigger question is what ends justify this and WHEN is this permissible. Under sufficiently compelling circumstances it might be permissible to hold your nose and be undemocratic for a moment or two. What are sufficiently compelling circumstances? Like porn I know them when I see them. We may not talk about it much but Abe Lincoln did a few undemocratic things in his time and history seems to look the other way.

Who gets to vote and whether there are any political groupings (legit) beyond individuals are closely tied it appears to me. Since to me democracy is a good thing in that it limits power, political groups beyond individuals may be a good thing as well if they similarly advance some end. Some political groupings actually serve to limit the concentration of power and a 'tyrrany of the majority.' Personally, I don't want a nation where only the opinions of those in California and New York count - screw you other 48 states. (slight exaggeration but you get the point).

I haven't answered them all but I'm winding down. Maybe I'll take another at bat later.

 

Although I don't live in the States, in New Zealand we have our own government called MMP. In this system you get two votes every election, one for your local representative and one 'party' vote. Party vote decides who becomes Prime Minister while Local Representative decides how many seats that party gets. However these don't always pan out and often the 'party' vote decides seats.

Competant? I'm going to have to go with Plato on this one. People should be able to become politicians only by showing they have the skills for the job. Why should a country be led by a butcher or an archetect or a teacher (in their previous job)? Shouldn't there be a course one can take at University or College that would give them a degree in political leadership? Unfortunatly democracy does not discriminate between those who understand how to run a country effectivly and those who don't. In New Zealand we've had a bit of 'vote-buying' by the government by being overly nice to groups (foreign aid, spending money on a single victim's fund etc.) to give the government a good reputation just before the elections. However if this type of 'nice' behaviour was to continue the economy of the country would collapse (money isn't being put into infrastructure, education or policing).

Another showing of how 'democracy' ignores the competance of voters is the number of seats the 'Green' party obtained in our previous election. Far too many than their policies should allow - legalising marajuana, complete anti-GE [non-negotiable] and various anti-growth policies. This party probably recieved the majority of its votes from marajuana addicts and those who have been punished for selling/posessing marajuana. This leads to the next question is it 'for' or 'by'?

As far as I've been able to see it's always been 'by' the people. People vote for things that they want personally. People have a habit in a democratic society for looking out for number one, themselves. If a law/bill/act is passed that they benefit from but the rest of the country loses on: too bad. Society usually get's a subtle ass-kicking from democratic government unless the leader has economic and standard of living policies in mind, pity they won't stay in long since harsh-taskmasters aren't liked.

Who gets to vote is tied in with competance. As far as I can see it people should have to pass some kind of 'test' before they are allowed to vote. People who understand little about how policies affect society and the country they live in should not be allowed to influence those decisions. Eg. Someone demands tax breaks yet also demands more funding for public schools... trust me, it happens.

For the individual/group question, yes and no. A country and its citizens should be the only ones allowed to take part in the way the country is run. It's their country, not somebody elses. They are the people who have to live with the decision that is made. This might sound evil but a country that looks out for itself tends to do better than a country that constantly worries about others. Sure, America looks out for other countries 'now' but what about before the civil-war? The glory of modern America was built on the backs of african slaves, America was a country that capatalised on slave labour. How about other successful 'empires' out there? The Romans were powerful, at their peak because of slave labour, only when slaves could eventually be freed and women started having a more active role in politics did it start to fall (not trying to be sexists here, but if you look at a timeline of the Roman empire you'll see the trend).

My opinion how a country should be run? Some form of monarchy although not by birthright, but by intellectual achievement. Only people who understand economics and are skilled in the main function of their portfolio (i.e. head of health for a country should be a doctor). Set rules for running a country that can not be changed by the person in charge. Use democracy to elect a board of representatives who control the power of the leader but who can not make decisions involving the running of the country themselves. It's a dream, I know. But it could work...

 

Democracy is a soul-stirring word. It has been used over and over again by politicians for effect when they want the heaviness of their words to settle on the hearts of Americans. Everyone knows we are engaged in bringing “democracy to Iraq.” I’ve heard little from Bush or any other supporters for the war about the need to bring a “republic” to Iraq. It was the same during the Vietnam years. I’ve read about it, the war cry of “democracy” rising against the tides of the East, while supposedly there was only communism on the hearts and minds of those “Orientals.” But back then the stalwarts of the West were engaged in bringing “democracy” to every corner of the globe. Now it’s just the Middle East, with Iraq as the laboratory. That is of course if one is willing to buy into any of this political fantasizing.

The Constitution of Massachusetts has been in the news a lot lately. Those judges decided that gays should not be excluded from the protection of government. It has all the cons up in arms because they all know that marriage can only be between a man and woman. And so they want to change it. I always smile to myself when I hear about that, because the Constitution that needs to be changed is the oldest functioning constitution in the world. It was crafted by John Adams, right after he returned from his first expedition from France. And he worked on it day and night putting everything he knew about the law and government into its crafting. It became the model for our entire system of government several years later – the idea of the separation of powers was in it. The central idea was that of a representative government that served the “greater good of the body politic,” and had a social compact with its individual members.

These are Adams’ words:

The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals. It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.

And this:
No man, nor corporation or association of men have any other title to obtain advantages or particular and exclusive privileges distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public.

This is one definition of a republic:
The Republic, a political treatise (early 4th century BC) by the Greek philosopher Plato. Presented in the form of a series of dialogues between Socrates and his pupils, it begins with a discussion of the nature of justice that leads in turn to an attempt to define the ideal society. For Plato, this would consist of an aristocracy run by a class of legislators groomed for leadership by a state education system.

An “aristocracy” of any kind was the last thing that Adams and most of the founders had in mind when they created our system of government, despite what those in power would have anyone believe. The idea of an elite privileged class was counter to everything that Adams and the Founders were working towards.
What Adams is saying, in short, is that this is a government for the people. But with qualifications: First, it is voluntary, and that it is a “compact,” and in essence that the people have the right to alter their government if they feel the compact no longer protects both the individual and the whole people. Second, that both the individual and the body-politic have a mutual agreement on certain laws for the greater good, that it is a commonwealth of laws rather than of men.

So it is neither a republic, nor is it a democracy. It can be labeled a representative-constitutional form government.

Your concern, Grey, about the rise of an educated aristocracy is well-taken. Adams addressed this very thing and countered with a broad-based plan of what can only be described as a “democracy of education.”
In the draft of Section II of Chapter Six of the Constitution: “The Encouragement of Literature:”
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.

Keep in mind that Adams was the son of a simple farmer – never bred to be a great politician and statesman, although that is exactly what he became, through largely his own efforts. But he believed strongly that government had an obligation to advance education among the general public, “for the preservation of rights and liberties.”

Sorry, Grey, this is my answer to only your first question. When I have more time I will work on the other three, but I might add a bit on this, as others have reserved the right to on their own reponses.

[ November 25, 2003, 21:59: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

1) Are people equally entitled and competent for politics?

All are equally entitled, that's sure. If they're competent, one will find out. It's obviously the same with any job. Can anyone learn the profession he wants to learn ? Certainly, if the person is able to do so, the person should be free to learn any profession the person wants to learn. As people usually start at the bottom of the ladder, when entereing politics, the competence question will soon be answered, as one sees how the tasks are accomplished. If someone is competent, you do not know beforehand. And you usually can't tell be the education they got. A lawyer may be the worse alternative to a plumber, because the plumber may just do a better job in the end, while the lawyer may be a complete failure as community council. And of course, people should be in positions, where they can use their personal expirience and their professional skills at best. Accountants, technical drawers, teachers, farmers... The optimal allocation of resources can only be found in a democracy.

2) Is democracy rule FOR the people, or rule BY the people?

People rule themselves. People make their own mistakes. Hopefully, they learn from their mistakes and change the situation to the better. And if not, who'd dare to say he could ? Can't change the mind of the neighbour.

As for protecting people. People in general need no protection from people who claim that others need protection and they are the ones able to provide protection. Sounds like a vanity affair. The best protection for the people is through ruling themselves which is possibly the best protection, yet not bulletproof, against people with the incapatitation of other people in mind.

"Make thine account with Heaven, governor, Thou must away, thy sand is run."

3) Who gets to vote?

Two examples: Is the Catholic church "democratic" because the College of Cardinals holds votes? Was the US really "democratic" for the century before giving women the vote?

Firsty, indeed, a state is best run by skeleton of a former presbyterian theocracy. There is for me no point in argueing that. Of course, only after the former church heads have been ousted. I personally think that the right to vote is a fundamental right and no one should be deprived from it at any cost, except for not being old enough. Or for health reasons. Foreigners should be able to vote on the communal and regional level. Garbage collecton, schools and roads and local traffic signs are everyday life decisions foreigners shouldn't be excluded from. On higher-levels, there comes this wierd "nation" thing into play.

But I think, that tradition and history plays an important role in matters like granting the right to vote. Women rights Dam parts of the heritage of the past. Know what, I did not live then nor do I see anything reminding of it.

4) Is there any legitimate political grouping beyond individuals?

Should confederations be outlawed ? Is the concept of nation merely humbug ? Star Trek ?

 

Looking at your second question, Thomas Jefferson is probably a better guide. No one was more concerned for the rights of the individual than he was. As the other half of the twin engines of the revolution for independence, he agreed with Adams on the idea of the government’s involvement in public education. But he met more resistance to this idea in his home state of Virginia than Adams did in Massachusetts. It is one of the unhappy events at the founding of our nation that the partnership of Jefferson-Adams, which had been so potent during the revolution, dissolved completely under the business of actual government by the end of the 18th Century.

Most Americans are familiar with the story, although this is an international board and some may not know how the two became enemies over their rivalries for the presidency and party differences over ideology. The Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties had their beginnings during this time, and Adams found himself on the other side of the “wall of separation” of party differences, as Jefferson was to describe it. The once very close friends described each other as a “Monarchist” (Adams) and a Jacobin (Jefferson). The accusation was unfair and hurt Adams deeply, who went a bit too far in trying to give George Washington the trappings of power. And Jefferson’s approval of the principles of the French Revolution was in turn perverted by his opponents into something different than what he meant for it to become.

But to get back to the question at hand, there is at least an example. Jefferson fought for the separation of Church and State to protect both the individual from the tyranny of the majority as well as to protect the people against an overreaching government. But he did not stop there, for when the Constitution was drafted it was he who insisted, with his new partner (Madison), that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution to protect the both the people and the individual . Also, remember that during his time, Jefferson was branded an “atheist,” not so much because he was one, but because he had the genius to foresee the kinds of problems that your question carries with it. In a country with a strong religious heritage as this one has, it was assured that without proper safeguards, (also, freedom of the press, speech, assembly, etc), the majority would impose itself on the individual, or the kinds of smaller groupings to which your post referrers. So, the answer appears to be that by protecting the majority from the tyranny of the government, and in turn by protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority, Jefferson achieved what is mostly a democratic solution to your problem. It is hard to see one side without seeing the other. It sounds simple on the surface, but, as recent events in Alabama prove, there are still some who just don’t get it.

I think most of us can agree that it is mostly a government for the people, since we are a nation of laws, made by representatives chosen by the people. Yet, often both concepts work together as you suggest in your post (even Lincoln said it was). And on important issues the people vote directly on the issues themselves. It is a democratic process when the politicians have to go to the voters for their approval on legislation, and other special matters of government. That is one of the reasons why what happened in CA hardly upset me, although it was an obvious power grab by the republicans. But the voters could have voted the whole thing down, but still chose not to – how much more democratic can that be?

 

Democracy is a scale, not an absolute. Some systems of governance are more or less democratic than others. Sure the US wasn't very democratic when the vote was denied to women, but it was a whole lot more democratic than Russia or the Austrian Empire which were absolute monarchies.

Democratic systems need to balance representation with workability. A pure participative democracy is unworkable - the US alone is on one level a collection of 250 million single-issue pressure groups. Therefore, you require some sort of consensus politics. Consensus politics falls naturally into two groupings which we call liberal and conservative. This isn't as artificial as it seems - most people fall within these groups. If you know some of a person's beliefs it is possible to predict with astonishing accuracy other beliefs that they hold (try the political questionnaires in H.J. Eynseck's 'Know Your Own Personality' to see what I mean). In working democracies, these two broad trends take it in turns to form the government as the popular vote swings one way and then another. In fact, since people get more conservative as they get older and because there are more older people that younger people in most Western-style democracies there is a slight preponderance of conservative government.

Forethought needs to be given to the constitutional structure of democratic governments since democracies can suffer from a number of structural flaws:

• The Italian scenario: it is not possible to form stable coalitions. Governments come and go with appalling regularity.
• The Israeli scenario: government is only possible in collaboration with extremist parties who then hold disproportionate power.
• The Mexican scenario: one party has an inbuilt majority of the popular vote. Although a democracy in name it is effectively a one-party state.
• The British scenario: a tripartite rather than bipartisan system holds. A party can win a majority of parliament seats without a majority of the popular vote.

Before anybody rushes to correct me, I know that Mexico has recently seen a change in government (after many, many years). I simply used Mexico as an illustration. I could have used Japan or, arguably, Sweden.

Some of these flaws are more severe than others. I personally think that the Israeli scenario is most flawed and the British scenario least flawed. I would rather have government by a party that I didn't vote for (i.e. the Conservatives) than have any power residing in the hands of fascists, communists or Greens.

In response to Grey Magistrate's questions:

In all democracies, there is an equality of opportunity to run for political office. If there isn't, you have an oligarchy not a democracy. Since all democracies have political parties, for reasons I've outlined above, the initial selection is by the paid-up members of a party.

Selection by lottery would be fair by definition but it would be very stupid indeed. You wouldn't choose a surgeon or a physics professor by lottery, so why would you want to choose political representatives in such a way?

The ultimate (and indeed only) legitimacy of democratic governments rests with consent of the demos. In working democracies, we elect representatives to govern on our behalf. They do not need to consult us on every matter nor should they. If every matter were turned over to a popular vote you would have voter apathy and democracy would turn into demagoguery. Besides which, do you really need to be asked whether your rubbish is to be collected on a Wednesday or a Thursday?

Citizenship and mental competence have always been requirements for the vote in every democracy that has ever existed. The selection criteria as to who qualifies to vote determines the degree of democracy. Athens was highly undemocratic because citizenship was a privilege of a very few. In the RC church, the entitlement to vote who is to be Pope is limited to cardinals and they choose one of their own; it is therefore an oligarchy.

As an aside, it is my belief that voting is not only a privilege but a duty. I believe that voting should be compulsory as it is in Australia. Not voting doesn't register your protest, it registers your apathy. If you really believe that there is no meaningful choice, spoil your paper. If thousands do that, it will be noticed alright. You hear many Americans complain about George W. Bush, but when asked whether they voted against him, they will reply that they didn't vote. In which case they have no legitimate complaint.

In the UK, we NEVER have a government which has a majority of the popular vote. There are two main political parties, Labour and Conservative, which each get 40±x% of the vote and a third party, the Liberal Democrats, who get around 20% of the vote. The country is divided up into constituencies. Whoever wins the popular vote in each individual constituency wins the seat. The popular vote of all other candidates counts for nothing. Is it a democracy? Yes. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than many alternatives.

With regards to the last US election where George Bush narrowly scraped through, I don't know whether you're even justified in saying that Gore got a majority of the popular vote. The difference between the candidates was probably within the margin of error of the counting system. Neither candidate would have been a satisfying victor.

For what it's worth I think you got the better of the two. I'm no great fan of Mr. Bush, but I believe that Gore would have been half the leader and twice the clown. Let's hope that the Democrat party choose Gen. Clark to be their candidate for the White House.

 

First of thank you Grey for your mentioning .You make me blush.
Now lets dive into the subject at hand.

Ideally yes but as we all now the reality is different. And in ancient Athens this was known too so there was a rule that many of you might do not know. When there was a discussion about an issue that needed some kind of special knowledge not everyone was encouraged to speak. Because if someone, who had no knowledge on the subject, was on the stance and started talking b*******t was punished by public whipping. This was a meter to prevent useless talking.

Well democracy is rule by the people for the people this is what the name means after all. Demos (Δήμος in greek is not exactly the city but more the people the city consists of). The municipality of Athens in greek is Δήμος Αθηναίων which means City of Athenians, not Athens. It is the only municipality (in Greece at least) with that distinction in the naming, this name is perserved from ancient era.

Well that is a simple subject at first look. Everyone who is mature enough to comprehend and grasp at least a adequate size of the matters that dominate the societys everyday (and not so everyday) life, is able to cast his vote. That was the main idea in ancient Athens too but with some more restrictions. One should have not avoided his military service (which was about ten or more years ). In military though only Athenian born and bred citizens were accepted. So any immigrant, and there were many in ancient Athens, were not entitled to have a vote per person. But they had their own counsil and also had representatives in the municipality where the issues were discussed and decisions were made.
The idea behind this was that only an Athenian citizen would show the appropiate focus and thought as to what would be best for the city-state/ citizens.
Furthermore i want to point out here that slaves in ancient Athens were far better treated than anywhere else in the world at that time (and maybe and for many occasions later than that period). Their master was obliged to keep them in good shape, they ate at the same table (and the same food) with their masters, they had a good chance of getting released from their slavery (many immigrants were former slaves) and they had the unique privilege of carrying weapons (ok not all but the "police force" of ancient Athens was consisted of slaves who carried a bow and a club).

I will take it here that you are reffering to political parties. Normally there should not be such a distinct grouping but.... Anyway some people are lets say more charismatic than others and as a consequence less charismatic people tend to be dazzled by this and follow them (or hate them to death, examples for both possibilities exist). Now the problem starts as to how blindly one follows a leader (Remember Hitler?) If the party members have not entirelly lost their vision from the glow of their leader they will always pose a lever for his ambitions keeping him grounded, else God knows how dangerous this can be.
Now i would like to make some additions here. Ancient Athens had the blessing of having many charismatic people at the same or in a close period of time. This was a great advantage because when you are with exceptional people, you try to live up to their standards. This is something i can't say for today leaders.
Secondly the administration of Athens was elected every year (to avoid this clutching to authority we see today) and the same person depended on the position could be elected two at most subsequent times or two and that's it or one every three years and so on. Pericles for instance was elected in two different offices (or three) while he was the spiritual leader of Athens, because of these restrictions. Every year before the elections the people who were in charge were obliged to give full and extensive report of what and why happened during their administration (especially the ones who dealed with money and army). And no position hold too much power. They were forced by the nature of their responsibilities to work together and only in minor subjects they had freedom to act alone. For instance the "military of defence" , to pronounce it with a modern term, had ten generals or "prime ministers" ,from which one had the head for one day then the other and so on.
What i have written is how, more or less, Athenians had constructed this political system that is called Democracy. I will be back with more feedback as soon as i am able

 

Thanks, all - especially our resident Athenian, Mithrantir! - for contributing to my post! And thanks especially to Chandos the Red for quoting John Adams, who deserves more than the lead role in the musical 1776.

I don't want to stand in the way of this stampede, but I want to maybe refocus on #1 and #3, which are connected. Mithrantir, you write that:

Chris Williams writes, similarly:

And Hacken Slash:

But there's a huge, huge, huge problem here. (Did I mention how huge it is?) Undemocratic theories vary considerably, but they all boil down to one basic idea: this person or that group is more qualified to govern, and therefore should govern. The Nazis appealed to race, the Marxists to the historical vanguard, medieval aristocracies to their bloodlines, modern elites to their superior intelligence, technocrats to their specialized training, dictators to their stability or military prowess or what-not, etc.

By introducing a competency test, a democrat concedes the anti-democrat's argument. All that the democrat and anti-democrat disagree about, then, is who is truly competent. The democrat thinks a lot of people are competent; the anti-democrat selects a smaller number.

But what about the US, which has no competency test? Ah, but we do...we have an age minimum. As Yago writes:

dmc recognizes the problem and answers with an arbitrary cutoff:

"A certain lack of mental capacity" - exactly the anti-democrat's argument. (Let's not forget that this very line of reasoning was used to deny the vote to women.) A plumber is very good at being a plumber, says the anti-democrat, but he lacks the mental capacity to understand the complexities of politics. The natural ruler is very good at politics, but he's a klutz at plumbing. So let the plumber do his thing and the ruler do his.

Again, it seems that both the democrat and anti-democrat agree on the need for a competency test. They just disagree on the questions on the exam. (Which is why, Abomination, I'd be suspicious of any university requirements for political participation.)

So maybe Mithrantir is right, and ancient Athens really was "democratic" because only a thin sliver of the population was competent enough to understand the political issues of the day. But if that's all democracy requires, then it's indistinguishable from aristocracy. Maybe we should call ancient Athens an elite democracy and modern America a mass aristocracy!

By the way, all, please don't get me wrong - I'm a (lower-case) republican through and through. Machiavelli was wrong about many things but he was right to say that a dictatorship is much inferior to a republic. Most of the ideas in this post came from reading Robert Dahl's book, "Democracy and Its Critics" - these four questions are the ones I don't think he answered to my satisfaction. (But maybe I'm just especially demanding.)

 

Well, DMC, people with many children will always have "more" votes than those without. With a system of voting at 18 or what it may be it just takes longer. I am pretty confident that atleast 70-80% of all people vote more or less along the same lines as their parents. If you are brought up in a home with socialistic values, you tend to vote socialistic, if you are brought up in a very conservative home you tend to vote conservative and if you are brought up in a very liberal home you tend to vote liberal.
Your parents dont even need to speak out loud, my my mother never spoke about politics and I remember that I as a young child asked her what she voted on after an election and she refused to divulge it. My father told me when asked but didnt otherwise talk much about politics.
Now as an adult I know that both of them lean quite far to the left and I find myself leaning quite far to the left. I am however more interested in politics than they are and give tihngs a bit more thought and I dont agree with them on all issues, but the basic values and thus what a person vote is something you most often get from your parents whether they intend it or not.

 

Ancient Greek democracy relies on the principle that everyone's vote is equal and within a given group, everyone is entitled to vote. Etymologically, the rule is by the people, not for the people. It's irrelevant whether it's for the people or not, so long as it's by the people. Theoretically and stretching it to the extreme, it may even be against, so long as it's by. Also, everyone is entitled to get his share of rulership regardless of his talents. People isn't plural from person here. People is the demos, the citizens. Non-citizens don't belong to the people.

In very ancient times with less complicated governance and policies and with multiple times less people in society, strict, direct democracy was possible. However, that was no longer the case as states developed. The essential equality of political importance among all individuals was still guarded, while it became necessary that lesser groups govern in the name of and for the people. It's impossible to have a hundred thousand people manage current affairs, is it? Thus the people ruled through representatives. Soon, the representatives started to resemble good old administration and the state was elevated to a conspect separate from the people. The focus shifted from individual-society tensions to citizen-state relations.

Consequently, modern democracy differs much from its original ancient foundations. As the state is still one but the citizens are many - any individual inhabitant being a citizen now, the importance of a single citizen has dropped. Unless they stand up as a larger body of like mind individuals, citizens are no longer an important force. At least not between elections. Citizens cannot choose representatives in their relations with authorities, as, essentially, the parliament and government are such representatives. Whoever would be invested with power, would become a public organ of governance therefore not substantially different from the government or parliament. Any group that would even seize the power, would sooner or later have to lay down laws and choose organs of governance. Simply to avoid chaos and be able to function at all.

As a natural course of events, authority groups tend to become remote and secluded from the rest of the people. For security, if for no other reasons. As a result of human nature, authorities tend to keep power about themselves if possible. Claims will always follow claims and each authority will be convinced deeply that it needs a broader scope of competence to perform its duties right. Personal drive for power is another factor. If possible, those at rule will try to elevate their families and friends also. If possible, establish some sort of more or less informal ties with other authorities (not even necessarily for private goals) and some sort of succession. Governance tends to become more and more complicated and so does even lesser administration. It requires specific preparation and, if possible, experience. Who will prepare better than one that held the same office. Not to mention supplying experience. Thus the path for new people becomes narrow. Very narrow. Often blocked for good.

Things being so, it evolves from democracy into some sort of republic, perhaps similar to republican Rome. The concepts of state crystalise and sovereignty drifts towards the state from the people. Governance may be for the people, but it hardly is by the people. The process intesifies until another break-down and another revolution, or at least reorganisation.

 

I did say 70-80% dmc, that leaves quite a bit of room for exceptions. I just wanted to point out that even though you are better ecquipped to make your own decisions as an adult your upbringing still colours your perception of the world.

I think we should have a topic here that should try to define what the word and concept democracy means, especially since everyone seems to go back to ancient Greece which really has very little to do with the modern concept of democracy. The best truth is that there is no real definition of democracy, it is a very wide concept and the definitation of that word is one of the key issues in all political science. When I studied PS one thing I learnt that if I wanted ot use the word democracy in a paper or exam I had to first define how *I* defined democracy in that specific matter. There is no fixed meaning of that word, no "true" definition of democracy.

 

Grey there is a big difference between the above presented thesis and that of the democratic denial of vote. In democracy youth is not allowed to vote untill it reaches the age of 18. Where 18 is perceived the age where normally you join the army for your obligatory service, so you lose a couple of years of votes but you gain a lot in wisdom. As i pointed out the Democracy does not qualify to vote therefore to be able to govern, for a well specified period of time not because you are black or red or crippled or anything. So not so undemocratic as protecting the youth from unneeded troubles and worries, allowing them to enjoy some years of carefree life.

My hat is off to Chevy for bringing this into this discussion. He is right it is impossible to apply hard core Democracy today. Or maybe it is not? Our technology has made giant leaps too. Maybe a small change in the whole concept of Democracy can make things work better than ever.
I will get back on this on another post.

Again Chevy you are my kind of guy.
This is the real problem today. Politicians do not consider themselves as part of the mob. Maybe this is good for some situations but in most cases it is unthinkable and unacceptable. We have politicians that are assuming their status as a profession which is not it is a public service. And the worst fear of any political system that has elections in it, the fact that members of their family (not to say almost the whole family) are becoming or are politicians, making the whole issue sounding something like an unapproachable guild.
So the real problem is not only if we are living in a political system, which is called democracy and we don't think it is, but also what are the politicians do to make Democracy become more of a reality than science fiction.
Just a couple of more thoughts and questions