Serious Thread #2: Forced Democracy

From the greater part of modern human existence power and government has been been as a top down affair, from king to man. In So called western democracy we essentially elect a king to rule over us and let it be. We offer limited scrutiny and are restricted from removing the king except at very special occasion. True democracy will only come when people take back their power and take an active role in the democratic process, i.e. the agreement on the rights and responsibilities of membership to that society, making use of leaders (servants and agents of the people) where necessary.

In short we should make democracy in our own countries before we go off meddling and imposing spurious king making processes in far flung lands. Furthermore, the law of unintended consequences is very much applicable in these situations. We can aid, assist, educate impartially but we really must stop meddling.

anyway japan wasn't democratic b4 and was after

this is the exception not the rule, as far as i can think (4-power occupation of germany maybe, but east german "democracy" wz pretty crummy even by eastern bloc standards

BNW uses the language that led me to start this thread: this statement that certain nations need democracy "forced upon them," which is what we all say but is sort of funny -- in any nation where there isn't a democracy the present regime is the one that's forced, so removing it in favor of an electoral system would in fact be a lessening of force, no? In other words, I feel like there's a weird back-of-head feeling that the people of some nations choose non-democratic systems (and there are indeed plenty of places where people prefer or are more loyal to past or present monarchies than current regimes), but the weird technical rub here is that even if you would choose a monarchy you haven't really chosen it.

Millar, I'm not sure what you're saying is true: I'd have to do some fact-checking before I offered any examples but I think there are plenty of instances in which certain sorts of approved-of autocrats are in fact much more positive forces for their nations than the short-sighted inchoate governments that can come from a nation that doesn't yet have the right structures to support a workable democracy. First off, democracy requires a really big support system to work well! And second, I think we sometimes forget that a great number of dictators are supported by huge numbers of their people, sometimes for a surprisingly long period of time: these are usually people who approve of what those regimes are doing anyway and would theoretically vote for them if given the opportunity, only they have some reason to believe that having that opportunity would also involve disarray or unrest or constant progress-inhibiting shifts in direction, etc.

To Ed: All societies have some form of justice system and some kind of system by which work is shared. While this may not require full-time civil servants it is a form of government and therefore the idea that government is not necessarily a part of society is false. It may be painted with ritual and completely fail to live up to our Western secular standards in many cases, but it is government nonetheless.

democracy in the current sense - ie what ed is calling king-for-a-while non-democracies - was forced on the country that first had it by quite a small group of people: viz cromwell's revolutionaries

ditto the more updated model established in france in the 1780s: the US revolutionary model of 1776 was ostensaibly chosen by "all" the people, but actually officially excluded more of these people (=slaves) then did the french constitution, where everyone was a citizen (even though practically speaking the ruling elite was tiny)

My problem with trying to impose western democracy on other nations is that it is breaking down here. All round the western world apathy reigns, voter turnouts are falling, people no longer feel that they have enough of a stake in the future of their countries. People are coming to realise that democracy as it stands is flawed. In the US people get a choice between two candidates every 4 years about 50% of people bother to turn up and vote, the candidates decided upon by a smaller group of people. Britain is no better 60% turnouts for general elections, people pick from a list of representatives of parties with broadly similar manifestos. The people have very little power over their own destinies they can only vote for programmes put forward by the parties not set the political agenda themselves.

This king making form of democracy can work but only when there are kings to enthuse the people into give them the legitimacy that comes from the popular ballot.

Millar: All societies do indeed have some form of justice system but to be democratic it must take its legitimacy from the people rather than from a central point. This is why the jury system is extensively used in our societies. My point is that we are still some way from the noble idea of government and justice 'Of the people, by the people and for the people' Far from it from me to suggest that we should let chaos after all I am an Anarchist.

My central socio-political belief is this:

I believe that all people should be free to do as they please so long as that does not affect the freedom of others to exercise that right. This ought to be the basis of society and from this you can derive most of the basic laws that govern are society. This basic principal rules out killing, theft and all forms of oppression. People are perfectly entitled to pool their power and form structures as they see fit but that central tenet always applies.

I don't mean to be snotty, John. But there are lots of arguments I've had with hardened leftists about 40 times before I ever discovered ILx and I get bored easily. Sorry.

the second principle which is derived from the first, by a round about route is 'To each according to his need, from each according to his ability'. This is how a society based on the first principle would have to organise itself in order to maintain adherence to the first principle.

*(viz corporations as clusters of patents: cf jefferson on the inequity of patent, bcz it denies the free flow of ideas to all, vs the "need to be paid for intellectual property", vs what corps actually do with their power as in fkn microsoft)

nozick had some big ball-busting argt abt the evils of inheritance taxes, but i totally forget it for the moment

my versh of lib/soc isn't much like ed's, as i suspected

haha hobbes

http://www-sor.inria.fr/projects/hobbes/bigger-hobbes.gif

Anyway, I'm generally in agreement with both of you on most principles I suppose but as a pragmatist first and foremost I still believe that

1. I'll kill you if you take my parent's house
2. War is sometimes necessary, for the same reason our police carry guns
3. Neither the people or their government can be bothered the with daily meddling required by an ideal 'true democracy' and a representative system is the best we've got at the moment.

I still don't see how Nitsuh's popstar autocrat is necessarily different from a democratically elected executive, except for possibly term limits. What would you call Vaclav Havel?

Ed I'm deeply surprised to find you approaching this from the maximum-liberty end, mainly because lots of your past comments have led me to think you're pretty skeptical about the structures and organizations we've come up with under those liberal paradigms; is it that you trust an absolutely-free engaged citizenry to protect itself from e.g. corporate power exactly as much as it needs? (But in doing so by any representative system would they not probably come up with something very much akin to the sorts of states we half-choose in present democracies?)

Yes Nabisco there sure as hell is, this guy is a mate so please be gentle with him :-) its unlikely you will read all or any of his thesis anyway- but it will bring a smile Im sure.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=009QPV

I do think you need economic development as well.

anyone read kiwi's link?

What's it like?

I quote that line of Marx because it is the most valuable thing he said.

As i see it people and the society they belong to must have primacy over corporate bodies. Indeed corporate bodies where they are an agglomeration of people's personal capital (both in terms of labour and money) are the way to run things. The problem with the current way of doing business in the world at the moment is that it values financial capital above all. Very little heed is given to the capital contained within the workforce and the natural capital consumed by business. Collective ownership is the way forward. To take as an example many large german firms have significant stakes owned by their work forces, with representatives of the workforce on the board. These are some of the most successful enterprises in the world.

Total workforce ownership and control is the ideal, note I'm not talking about state ownership and control something that has been shown time and time again to be worse that the current situation. Heaven forfend that I should suggest that we abandon progress for the plough share. What is required is that people who are stakeholders in an enterprise actually hold a stake.

Liberty is when people have power over there own destinies and the opportunity to shape them.

Under the current systems of being people have to be protected from corporations because their only interest is in money.

Democracy is the best in practice, as People = Shit, and it takes a lot longer for it to spin out of control.

And a non-benign dictatorship masquerading as a democracy is the worst, obv. Unless you have two of them at war...

I have very little say in certain aspects of my destiny and that of society as a whole. I feel as if I have in certain respects a disproportionately low power in relation to my status as one person among many. I cede my political power every time I vote but I do not feel that I am properly represented. In fact I feel that many of my views are not represented at all.

Certainly I feel that I am in a better position than many people in the world but that does not stop me striving for an ideal.