What is a democracy? When will it fall off from its definition?

[Egeides]

Democratic Republic of Congo, Democracy of Yadayadayada... the name doesn't make the country. And it's true for Congo just as for Canada, USA or ancient Greece. So what do we call a democracy?

I here try to corner a definition. First part is about the definition itself, while the second part is about how the definition is used thereafter in a society. I end up by a practical conclusion about what all this means in our way to see "democracy" (therefore how to act and speak toward it).

1-What is a democracy?

Greece permitted a tiny minority to vote, yet it called itself a democracy. Demos + cratos... something like that. Anyway: power and people, people decide. People, called citizens, in this period meant males higher than a certain age and of a certain class. Direct democracy was born. If Canada gave vote to 20% of its population only and acted like Greece, would it even be called a democracy?

France called itself a democracy too. Yet I don't think that having a parliament that doesn't consider what people think anyway makes a country "democratic". It took a loooong while and lots of trouble before France (and others followed) passed to some kind of people decision as we mean it nowadays. Representative/parlementary democracy was born. Is it a representative democracy if "representatives" take decisions that do not "represent" the population's choices?

Right now, we have some countries called democratic while their polling methods makes that it is possible for votes to be separated between many parties. In the end, someone can win the election with a minority of votes when the opposition is divided. Basically, it means that you don't even represent the majority anymore. It is called whattever-democracy. This is also democracy.

So let me propose some kind of wide definition: Saying that an object is red is tricky since any epiteth, by its nature, brings back to a comparison (just as "beautiful" is beautiful COMPARED to, it has 98% red/2% blue COMPARED to something...). In the absolute, it means that no society can be 100% democratic, but only get as close as it can of it (there's always some losses somewhere): and a country having this as an aim is "democratic". To be acurate, we should thus say to which extent a society is democratic. But if we talk generally, we could say that the word "democracy" is employed when a country's political methods are democratic enough compared to our present barem (which changed in time). This often means, based on our barem, that a country is democratic if its political methods aim and are oriented towards having the people directing the country coherently (thus not necessarily directly for each decision). It doesn't mean that it works, only that it aims at working. Here again, the extent to which these mechanisms are present is a matter of comparison, and the limit to use the word "democracy" is different for each of us. Some see it as sufficient if there are elections, some need these elections to not be grossly tricked as in South America, and some need them to not be tricked at all (the USA is in a curious situation with Gore-Bush for example). Some ask more.

Of course, from this point we can understand that there is a collective definition, and then we are into linguistics or fields around it. Its collective form is in fact not stable neither homogenous (it changes, and persons each have their position within this). But still, a definition can collectively be "formerly accepted" and it is the subject of my second part:

2- When will it fall off from this definition?

And besides, this was inspired to me by this crap >:( (It's just a cartoon, but I read articles about it too. There is a specialist of this subject in Philadelphia too, which wrote book/s + articles):

http://www.salon.com/comics/knig/2004/09/29/knig/index1.html

So where wont it be a democracy anymore? It seems to me that it would still be a democracy when it would have mechanisms aiming for democracy. If we need a limit for a definition to be employed, we need to understand that it is a collective definition and thus clearer limits will mean that the definition wont change as much from one person to another, thus permitting better communication. Thus, I think that a stable limit would be about the mechanisms in use in democracies: elected representatives only will take main decisions.

Consequence: While we should stick democracy as a high ideal, we shouldn't make such a big deal of its present application (not as much as some are making of it), which is uncomplete compared to what is aimed.

Comments?

PS: Oh, and if you think nothing is rocky, think again. I heard about fishy things in Canada for instance: for example someone I had around me presented himself at provincial elections (original guy, but his work rocks) as an independant, and he said that some candidates bought all leaflets miles around so that little ones couldn't compete. True? False? Well I did not check.

PPS: Oh and besides... I am now near London with you brits! 8)

[Andrew]

PS: Oh, and if you think nothing is rocky, think again. I heard about fishy things in Canada for instance: for example someone I had around me presented himself at provincial elections (original guy, but his work rocks) as an independant, and he said that some candidates bought all leaflets miles around so that little ones couldn't compete. True? False? Well I did not check.

PPS: Oh and besides... I am now near London with you brits! 8)

You mean a candidate bought leaflets and spread them around town?

What is wrong with that?

Political parties get money to do advertising. If you want to limit advertising so that everyone has an equal chance, then there would be no advertsiing as an independant may not have money for advertising.

And on CBC they gave equal time throughout the day to ads for each party. (But then each party could also pay for more advertising.)

[nemafakei]

Democracy is a means to an end, no more. It is a system by which we hope to attain a government which makes good decisions. This must be borne in mind before other questions.

Secondly, is democracy a single form or direction? The broad idea is that power is in the hands of the people. I think we can agree that a country that favours distribution of power amongst the populace is democratic in direction.

However, thait is not to say the form of democracy is single. Any form which acheives a level of democracy can be said to be democratic to the same extent. Classical Athens was slightly democratic, but it did not extend rights to much of its populace, so its democracy was limited. Republican Rome was slightly democratic, but the system of democracy was heavily geared towards to the rule of the patrician class. Note that these two democracies are of very different types. In many ways, Athens was far more heavily participative, whereas Rome was much more about appointing representatives.

And herein lies a major question: to what extent can representative democracy be truly democratic? Is it rule be the people, or rule by the electable? And, lest we forget the underlying status of democracy, does such a system produce the best decisions?

But there is also a major problem: we cannot practically decide on every issue by total participation. We need to find a way of taking a poll from the general populace that represents an group small enough to be informed and to ask for information, but in a way that prevents bribery.

Furthermore, we need to ensure that all power is fairly used. This includes the economic power currently wielded by transnational corporations, which is inevitably going to be used for the benefit of shareholders rather than the people whose lives the decisions will really affect. This will likely mean a change from a capitalist-style economy to some form of socialist-style economy.

That is the direction that seems to be the most conducive to democracy.

[Dude_Doc]

We can clearly see that the world is not ruled by democracy, but by the global market, the rich and powerful. They can extend their power all around the globe, whereas democracy can only, at least for now, be participated within each nation's borders.

The thing is that the government simply can't listen to the people. They can't obey to them because that would mean changing direction every now and then, and it would make a great impact on the world market, which isn't good because that nation's economy would be unstable.

Say that the majority of any given nation voted for an equal socialistic "path", one that offers equal chances and overall prosperity (in the long run), would the government of that country accept it? I'm afraid not - one of the facts that democracy is corrupted throughout the world today.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, let's see what Platon gave me. Oligarchy tends to accumulate wealth and thus create large poor caste. However, as the ruling circle is becoming smaller in numbers (their bancroting the others), poorest classes see them only as parasites and so (also lured by their "inefficiently used" wealth) they overthrow them. That's a creation of democracy. However, in democracy state must allow even more than just a free market, what you all take as something natural. Free worldwide market is what differentiated Greeks from barbarian Cyclopes, if you read Odyssea. Other rights are effect of it, altough for them was needed much more blood to take them. Problem is that you have only rights and nearly no duties. Even if you would be a perfect ruler, nothing can force you to be it if you don't want to  ;D  Thus you allow place for demagogues and - tyranny. State where all democracies end.

[Egeides]

Thus, wouldn't it mean a mix between freedom and duties, within a system that "self-heals" and "self-regulates" itself?

It would not necessarily be as some of our present democracies based more on the individual, but a form based perhaps on freedom limited by a network of choices that you made that impacted with others.

In this case of the definition given by Plato, we are truly talking within the world of ideas. Democracy is a term that thus is about its concept in itself. I guess it does not contradict with what I wrote.

Andrew: No, I mean that the independant said that when he went to buy some flyers he was answer by all publishers "Sorry, I wont sell you any flyers" because some others just came and took everything in advance. I don't need to believe or not the guy, I just say it's what he said. Asking for a command was useless since some bigger ones had apparently blocked the sources. (As I mentioned, this is simply "what someone said")

[nemafakei]

Egeides, was that post just in reply to Caid's?

[Caid Ivik]

Thus, wouldn't it mean a mix between freedom and duties, within a system that "self-heals" and "self-regulates" itself?

It would not necessarily be as some of our present democracies based more on the individual, but a form based perhaps on freedom limited by a network of choices that you made that impacted with others.

Platon's view on democracy ends here. Here there isn't a system for you, but you live for the system. More going to what he called timocracy, that spartan system, or better Aristoteles' ideal politeia.

[Egeides]

Nema, you pragmatic... British ;) (that's a reason why I'm in the UK)

I agree that the goal of a democracy is its end, but I believe that the system still exists behind this and, this is the whole point, with a mechanism behind this system. I thus think that there is only one way human societies work, but with different cultural and environmental mechanisms though. To which extent do these last two affect the global thing? Well to quite an extent, but I believe we still can study the global mechanism of democracy, but we simply cannot apply this integrally without an understanding of everything that has to do with a specific situation.

So it is not that much that there are different democracies, but that there are different situations into which democracy can be applies differently and to a different degree.

[nemafakei]

I wasn't calling attention to my own post, Egeides, honestly, I was just asking if the points were all made in the specific context of Caid's post, so as I could understand them better.

"So it is not that much that there are different democracies, but that there are different situations into which democracy can be applies differently and to a different degree"

I agree, insofar as you mean democracy is not a single fixed format (or even a set of fixed formats), but a principle to be applied according to the situation.

"I agree that the goal of a democracy is its end, but I believe that the system still exists behind this and, this is the whole point, with a mechanism behind this system. I thus think that there is only one way human societies work, but with different cultural and environmental mechanisms though"

I think you've lost me. In what context is the system existing behind the goal and the menchanism the system?

[Andrew]

USA is democratic.

It had only two people in the live debate. So basicly, you can vote for this guy, or this guy. But both might screw you over.

Canada had 4 parties on live debate. And there was debate as to have a 5th party added.

In USA I know of Bush, Kerry and Nader.

Is anyone else running in USA? Any other parties?

Canada had 12 parties running... (5 of them I would consider major; Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc, and Green. Green included because they had a person running in every electoral district except 10(?))

Registered Political Parties and Parties Eligible for Registration in Canada

How democratic does a country have to be to be democratic?

[nemafakei]

It's not a question of democratic: yes or no, it's a question of how democratic. It's not just the numbers of choices you have (though more is better), but how much the choices reflect the views and the interests of the populace.

And if all choices are pretty much the same, there's no real choice. When companies wield so much power, both economical and electoral, for private interest, it's not so much democratic as plutocratic, no matter what the theoretical powers of the elected candidates.