Democracy as a method.

[oi]

So this weekend I finished a short essay where I questioned the belief that the right to own property is a fundamental democratic right. Not because I'm a mad commie who thinks that we should hand it all over to the state, but rather because I think we're turning democracy into something it really isn't. So, to turn ~15 pages into something shorter, my argument was something like this;

First the obvious Marxist critique that the choice to work isn't really a choice, since not working in a capitalist society isn't really feasable by any means, and the fact that since the owners have full power over their property, your choice is limited to what others allow you to chose. But, of course, that doesn't mean that we're all tricked into doing something we don't really want to do. The contract between employer and employee is in most cases agreed upon under democratic circumstances by discussion between both parts. However, the fact still remains that the employee gives up certain rights to his employer when he agrees to this contract, and is afterwards (while working, of course) under the jurisdiction of the employer or owner/s.

Now, this is what I find interesting. We've used democracy as a method to reach something else, rather than use it as a goal (or as a neverending journey as most promoters of cosmopolitan politics would argue). So what I'm wondering is how you view this; is something we've agreed upon by democratic standards democratic just because we have a mutual agreement that it's alright or acceptable, even though it might lack some of what we usually find necessary for it to be considered democratic? Would, as an example, Iraq be democratic if we allowed them to base their laws upon the more conservative views of the Quran rather than western standards of what's considered human rights, if that's what they wanted?

I'm under the impression that it wouldn't. But I'm not under the belief that democracy is the system of all systems either, and I can easily see why democracy isn't practical in all circumstances. I'm not really against using democracy as a method rather than a goal, but what I sort of have a problem with is that we tend to call alot of things democratic that really shouldn't be. Although I can of course understand why it's practical in politics, since we've pretty much accepted democracy as the de facto standard of what to use. That makes it alot easier to just call things democratic and get it over with than try to explain to Hillbilly Cletus why it's good, but not necessarily democratic. I guess for me the problem is that we have started to think that everything that we currently consider 'good' = democracy, even though it gets packed with contradictions.

So, uh, that's my views for the day.

 

[sytaylor]

I guess for me the problem is that we have started to think that everything that we currently consider 'good' = democracy, even though it gets packed with contradictions.

So, uh, that's my views for the day.

Im gunning for that being the crux here. You answered your own question in part.. something beneficial becomes moral fodder to the weak minded. Thats why brainwashing works. The majority of people are programmable if you put enough effort in, and provide them with rewards (Hitler is a classic example). This fails in communism because without competition the general standard of living hits the lowest common denomenator.

As such it doesnt bother me that the word is loosing its meaning in the media, because as usual those who want to understand a situation will. The apathetic masses will continue to be led by the loudest voice. Fortunatley in democracy the fundemantals of the judicial system tend to keep the loud ones on track.

Its not perfect, but its bloody good

 

[Natoma]

This is an interesting topic, and frankly I need to think about it a little more before giving an indepth response.

But what you brought up regarding Iraq, oi, is what I find quite funny about this entire situation. There is a very good chance the iraqis will elect a theocratic government and become Iran basically. Donald Rumsfeld has said on occassion that this is not an acceptable solution, and President Bush has said on occassion when asked that he does not believe the iraqis will go this route. That of course does not answer the question of what happens if they do. One wonders how we would be able to 'solve' such a problem should it arise in the future, since the problem will have been created through democratic means. hehe.

 

[Legion]

First the obvious Marxist critique that the choice to work isn't really a choice, since not working in a capitalist society isn't really feasable by any means, and the fact that since the owners have full power over their property, your choice is limited to what others allow you to chose. But, of course, that doesn't mean that we're all tricked into doing something we don't really want to do. The contract between employer and employee is in most cases agreed upon under democratic circumstances by discussion between both parts. However, the fact still remains that the employee gives up certain rights to his employer when he agrees to this contract, and is afterwards (while working, of course) under the jurisdiction of the employer or owner/s.

Likewise in communism it would be impossible for people simply not to work. The system would cease to function. We also need to point out that communism isn't inherently democratic and has proven, throughout history, to move toward totalitarianism.

When an employer signs a contract he too gives up certain rights. In a communistic state we'd simply reverse the Marxist fallacy of worker oppression and turn the matter towards coporate oppression.

 

[Legion]

This is an interesting topic, and frankly I need to think about it a little more before giving an indepth response.

But what you brought up regarding Iraq, oi, is what I find quite funny about this entire situation. There is a very good chance the iraqis will elect a theocratic government and become Iran basically. Donald Rumsfeld has said on occassion that this is not an acceptable solution, and President Bush has said on occassion when asked that he does not believe the iraqis will go this route. That of course does not answer the question of what happens if they do. One wonders how we would be able to 'solve' such a problem should it arise in the future, since the problem will have been created through democratic means. hehe.

I would suggest the US monitor them. If an oppressive theocratic leadership is put in place then it needs to be removed. However as we can see in communism, a secular leadership can likewise be rather horrible and abusive.

 

[Natoma]

I would suggest the US monitor them. If an oppressive theocratic leadership is put in place then it needs to be removed. However as we can see in communism, a secular leadership can likewise be rather horrible and abusive.

Hence the problem. When have the US ever attacked a nation simply because of the brutality of its elected regime? In fact we have supported more repressive regimes than I can count, especially in the last 50 years in the fight against communism.

I don't think you'd find the political strength to do this anyway. How could we justify going in and removing a government that the people elected?

 

[oi]

Likewise in communism it would be impossible for people simply not to work. The system would cease to function. We also need to point out that communism isn't inherently democratic and has proven, throughout history, to move toward totalitarianism.

Yes, which is why I said that I didn't want to give it all to the state. You can use Marxism or Anarchism (or liberalism, if you turn the tables) as a method for analysis to give critique without advocating the system in itself. I really don't think that communism or anarchism are valid answers, but the questions they raise I do find interesting.

When an employer signs a contract he too gives up certain rights. In a communistic state we'd simply reverse the Marxist fallacy of worker oppression and turn the matter towards coporate oppression.

That might be the case, but that doesn't change the point I was trying to make, which is that we through the use of democracy as a method accepts an undemocratic system. Just because both parts might lose some on the deal doesn't necessarily make it more democratic (like socialism, as an example).

 

[Fred]

Theres a moral relativism argument in there. Who are we to determine what the people of Iraq should or should not elect. If they wish to live under a theocracy, all power to them.

Then there's the realist side which says 'Ok, they're already pretty brainwashed as is. So lets reverse brainwash them. Women, minorities, and different religions are subjugated under such a theocracy. Lets impose the traditional western seperation of church and state, and see how that goes.'

As far as US interests are concerned, the latter is probably favorable, although there will be a lot of pain in the transition so maybe even that is not clear.

Its a tough call, *knock on wood* hopefully it will just naturally turn out right!

 

[oi]

Im gunning for that being the crux here. You answered your own question in part..

Yes, but I was sort of interested in your answer, since I already knew mine

As such it doesnt bother me that the word is loosing its meaning in the media, because as usual those who want to understand a situation will. The apathetic masses will continue to be led by the loudest voice. Fortunatley in democracy the fundemantals of the judicial system tend to keep the loud ones on track.

But what's happening here is that we're constantly adding to the fundamentals of democracy. I mean obviously the system will change, since it's not exactly the same thing as it was a couple hundred years ago. But, if we keep protecting things we find good under the banner of democracy, I'd say the chance for democracy turning out as the laughing stock of the future is as good as it evolving into something better.

 

[oi]

There is a very good chance the iraqis will elect a theocratic government and become Iran basically. Donald Rumsfeld has said on occassion that this is not an acceptable solution, and President Bush has said on occassion when asked that he does not believe the iraqis will go this route. That of course does not answer the question of what happens if they do. One wonders how we would be able to 'solve' such a problem should it arise in the future, since the problem will have been created through democratic means.

I was thinking about using Iran as an example but eh, since I'm no expert on Iran it was easier to use a theoretic example hehe. But anyways, I agree completely with what you're saying. It would be new heights of hypocrisy if we first gave them the rights to democratically chose how to create their own system, and then if it doesn't end up to our liking we'd be like 'Not good enough, sorry. Try again.' untill it's close enough to what we consider good in the west. It would be sort of like how socialism works, namely that we 'help' them to know what's best for themselves, even though they might initially disagree.

 

[Humus]

One thing to remember when we talk about what's "democratic" or not is that democracy does not neccesarily mean majority rule. The word in itself just means rule by the people. Letting the majority decide is just a way to do this. In most democracies decisions can be made against the majority of the people, since the elected representatives doesn't neccesarily reflect the general consensus among the people.

Today the word democracy tend to include a whole lot of stuff that we be experience know to be good and consider fundamental human rights. These things are typically raised above the majority and are protected by a constitution and can't be changed with just a simple majority.

If Iraq would vote a teocratic government, then it stops being a democracy as it violates the right of religious freedom. Even if it was a democratic decision. Just like Germany stopped being a democracy when the nazis banned other parties, despite Hitler being democratically elected. What should be done in Iraq is of course to ensure that religious freedom is protected in the constitution. Then at least they will start off as a democracy. Hopefully the'll keep it that way too. If they remove this element at a later time however, it's more than ok for the rest of the world to object, just like we can and should object to undemocratic actions in other countries.

 

[Sabastian]

If Iraq would vote a teocratic government, then it stops being a democracy as it violates the right of religious freedom. Even if it was a democratic decision. Just like Germany stopped being a democracy when the nazis banned other parties, despite Hitler being democratically elected. What should be done in Iraq is of course to ensure that religious freedom is protected in the constitution.

Iran banning moderates from running in the election comes to mind when I read this.

I think it is important that Iranian style government stay contained in Iran and not become entrenched in Iraq not only for the sake of success on behalf of America but for the qualities of Democracy to be inherited by the Iraqi people. The Iranian government may well be meddling in the affairs of Iraq and would be upset to see a successful western styled neighbor.

The horror of it all! .. a successful Iraqi transformation to democratic methods might well spread, upsetting the some of the most repressive governments in the modern world.. how repugnant.

The upset of Saddams Iraq may well be the single largest event in history since the end of WW2. Unless of course, the Iraqi democracy fails and is overrun by blackmailing terrorist and Islamic fundamentalism.[/rant]

 

[oi]

But shouldn't what's considered fundamental rights be agreed upon by the people it will affect? I mean it's not exactly democratic for the west to come in and say that a decision made with democratic standards is unacceptable, because the majority (the west) thinks the minority (the middle east) is wrong. But then again, we don't really consider democracy when we talk global affairs, which is kind of hypocritical in a way.

But of course what you consider democratic and where you draw the line is dependant on how you define democracy, which isn't the easiest thing to do heh. I mean I don't think that representation is a requirement for a democratic institution to be democratic, be it a country, company, soccer club or whatever. I'd rather claim that what's important, instead of saying that you can do this or that, is the rights to freely express your opinion without fear of being punished for going against the majority or a minority, and the rights to alternative sources of information. In short, all parts that are affected by a decision should be able to discuss the matter at hand, be it with the help of representatives, direct democracy, some kind of deliberative discussion (which I think is retarded btw, hehe), or any other form. It starts to become undemocratic when one part has no say whatsoever in a decision that will affect both parts. But this is of course all imo, and very shortly put. It's not hard to find people who disagree and have their own definitions though, obviously enough.

And I have no doubts that it's possible to pick holes in my reasoning, since I didn't start thinking about using democracy as a method in first hand rather than a goal untill kinda recently heh.

 

[sytaylor]

But what's happening here is that we're constantly adding to the fundamentals of democracy. I mean obviously the system will change, since it's not exactly the same thing as it was a couple hundred years ago. But, if we keep protecting things we find good under the banner of democracy, I'd say the chance for democracy turning out as the laughing stock of the future is as good as it evolving into something better.

The change will only be good if the people only want good things. The fact is the average person is far from average and holds the odd whackjob view here or there. Thats the joy of consensus, usually somewhere in the middle is the "right" answer. A constant swing between ideaologies in power is healthy imo, keeps the balance about right, even if I may disagree more with one side than the other. It is nessasary.

Democarcy is a pendulum, parties in power can't deliver the world but will make changes, the public become disolusioned and the replacement party promises the world.. So the cycle continues. It takes time for a nation to get to this point, but the pendulum has to be given time to be swinging ever so slightly from left to right, instead of th eextreme jumps you can get at the start of democratic institutions.

 

[epicstruggle]

oi, can you describe what democracy means to you (or in your essay). Humus, has correctly stated that certain terms have had their definitions mangled. Id like to know what is actually meant by your use of democracy.

later,
epic
ps about land ownership. Do you consider native americans and the mongols a culture that did not believe in land ownership?

 

[Druga Runda]

good thread

democracy should be a method of choice. And after it creates a system - people inside the system will have to change it. You cannot force democracy, one way or another - the system needs a culture change in order to improve, and you cannot impose it from outside. Well Iraq iteslf is much more complex as you have three groups and one group with a 3/5 majority. That is a major disadvantage in setting up a democratic system there. But we will see.

As for our own systems, I would like to see more "uneven" numbers of major policy makers in our systems.. ... we already have like US has three decision making levels which is the senate/president/supreme court or UK government/parliament/lord chancellor. ie. so there is conflict of interests and "state" protection of these bodies who are able to contradict each other for the benefit of the citizens if one of the parties becomes too extreme in some point the other can correct it. I would like to add compulsory 3+ party system, just to add to some balance in the decision making - this might be impractical to add but there could be some incentives as "state" financing for at least 3 parties, even if the third one is under 5% entry limit, and at least 1 representative from the 3rd party in the parliament even though it is below the entry limit, if neccessary.

 

[oi]

democracy should be a method of choice. And after it creates a system - people inside the system will have to change it.

This is what I'm getting at. We can let them use democracy as a method to reach what they want, be it a democratic goal or not, or we can skip the whole part about letting them do it themself and give them a complete system to make sure that the 'end' they reach is fair. Both obviously have their disadvantages, since by letting them do it themselves we risk that they might set up an 'oppressive' theocratic regime, but if we have too much influence in the outcome they could very well start to see democracy as a fraud since they have no real say in what's happening anyways.

oi, can you describe what democracy means to you (or in your essay). Humus, has correctly stated that certain terms have had their definitions mangled. Id like to know what is actually meant by your use of democracy.

I didn't define democracy per see, but instead I used two authors definitions and added critique and my own thoughts. Robert Dahl defines democracy as: 1. Elected officials, 2. Free, fair and frequent elections, 3. Freedom of expression, 4. Alternative sources of information, 5. Asociational autonomy, and 6. Inclusive citizenship. He makes the difference between ideal democracy and democracy in practice, and claims that no country is fully democratic because we all go against one of his points at one time or another. The most common one being 'inclusive citizenship'. Instead he thinks we should discuss democratic countries as more or less democratic, rather than say 'this is a democratic country'.

Lauri Karvonen on the other hand defines democracy the same as Freedom House do (www.freedomhouse.org), namely that democracy can be split up in a political side and a rights side. On the political side we have equal voting and hence priority to the majoritys rights to power. On the rights side we have the stuff that's supposed to stop tyranny by majority, namely freedom of expression, freedom of organisation, equality in front of the law and a free and fair justice system. Karvonen and freedom house claims that democracy is what we in the west make it to be, and that we're the 'standard' when we talk democracy, instead of it being more of an ideal as Dahl claims.

But both of those are pretty ordinary definitions of what democracy is, and most definitions will be similar to those two. But, both of them assume that democracy is the end of the journey, as probably pretty much everyone nowadays does. What I'm claiming though is that we can't create a universal ideal of what's supposed to be a democratic 'end', but we can define democracy as a fair method to reach that end.

Joseph Schumpeter wrote a book which is kinda relevant to this discussion called Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, which I however haven't read yet. He's under the impression though that democracy isn't useful as an end, but it is very useful as a method. It was written 1947 though so he probably had a different ideal of what a democratic end would look like than we do. I don't know if he was a nazi or something either lol so uh, I don't want to say that he's right since I don't really know what he's discussing, just that he discusses democracy as a method hehe.

ps about land ownership. Do you consider native americans and the mongols a culture that did not believe in land ownership?

I don't know enough about the native americans nor the mongols to make a conclusion like that. But I'd guess that both of them placed value upon land ownership via tribal territories. I certainly don't think that they were some kind of anarchists heh. The indians probably had some sort of belief that the world was a kind of nation which were buildt up by smaller nations (tribes) that had undefined, changing borders which were protected by the tribes. This is just a guess though since they were nomads and hence sort of brings their country with them, rather than extend their countrys borders. But eh, weren't the mongols like warmongers? I mean as far as I know (which isn't alot, mind you) they were somewhat nomadic like the indians, but thought that borders were set and could and definatley should be extended, which pretty much makes them uncomparable to indians. But as I said I haven't really showed much interest for the indians or mongols so eh, I dunno heh.

Edit: Actually since I don't even know if indians had a set pattern when they traveled around, or if they allowed others to use the spots they weren't currently using (assuming that they had a set pattern of travel, and later return to where they started), I don't know if the 'bring their country with them' comment was valid. So I guess they could be pretty comparable to mongols afterall heh. But anyways, since I don't think that indians did protect a part of their route that they weren't currently on, I still think they were more of bring their country with them culture than the mongols. But bleh, feel free to correct me