# Is democracy overrated?



## ernest_

Hello there,

I don't want you to think that I am the fascist type but honestly, don't you think that we've already had enough of democracy?  It doesn't work. How much will it take for people to realise? I don't know, but sure as hell it will be a lot of time if we don't do something.

The argument goes like this: The problem is that society as a whole is very conservative. People don't like changes. But improvement demands changes. Therefore, people prevents improvement. The conclusion obviously follows: we must get rid of people, but wait a minute... we can't do that! So, basically, we are stuck with an outdated, possibly aberrant political system.

What do you think? Is democracy the worst mistake we have ever made?  Is it a wonderful thing? Is it going to explode? Is it going to implode?  Tell me about.


----------



## cuchuflete

Considering some of the recent alternatives we have seen in action, I'll take democracy with its flaws:

Argentina- Videla, Galtieri etc., asesinos

Chile- Pinochet, asesino

Spain- Franco, asesino

USSR- Stalin et alia, asesinons

Germany- Hitler, asesino

The list could go on and on, with many more countries and many more dictators who also didn't care for democracy.  They employed various alternative systems.  Which of those do you prefer to democracy with its flaws?

How about a good old-fashioned monarchy?  How well did those work compared with flawed democracies?

Is the answer a state run by religious leaders on purely religous principles?  Which of those would you like to live in?


----------



## Keikikoka

What then should be used in place of democracy? If the argument is that human beings invariably delay progress, how do we find a system of government not ran be human beings. Why would a monarch, a dictator, or a tyrant be more open to change than the people as a whole?


----------



## Amerikaner508

What about a Republic style government?


----------



## Athaulf

Shouldn't we first take care to agree on the definition of "democracy"? This question is often overlooked in debates of this kind, which often produces a lot of confusion. 

When it comes to the definition of "democracy," the only thing about which there is universal agreement is that a democratic political system must give a significant weight to the popular opinion expressed through regularly held events such as elections, referendums, etc. However, no actually existent political system is based purely on the expression of the popular opinion; there are always at least some mechanisms capable of overriding even those decisions that have a clear support of the majority. In the U.S. and the other modern democracies, the principal mechanisms of this kind are the constitutional courts -- which are accordingly sometimes criticized on the grounds that their decisions contradict the popular will. Also, in all democratic countries except perhaps the U.S., there are certain legal limitations on who is allowed to compete in the elections (mostly in the form of banning various extremist parties).

Thus, democracy in practice means the rule of the popular will through free elections, but with certain limitations -- and the opinions about the proper scope and form of these limitations vary greatly. This often leads to hopelessly confused arguments about whether certain policies or institutions are indeed "democratic." On the one hand, extreme limitations on the expression and implementation of the popular will obviously mean that the system is oligarchic or autocratic rather than democratic. On the other hand, it's easy to find historical examples of governments that carried out very nasty policies while backed by overwhelming popular support, in some cases even repeatedly tested by elections; few people are ready to describe such governments as "democratic." There are even cases when measures contrary to the apparent will of the majority are widely hailed as "democratic." Thus, different people's visions of what "real democracy" should be cover most of the gray area between an oligarchy/autocracy and an unrestrained rule of the majority.

So, going back to the original questions, I would say that most of them are put in too crude a  form. Obviously, advocating the outright abolition of democracy in today's democratic countries would be a position of extreme radicalism, as well as advocating a completely unrestrained rule of the majority. However, there is certainly a lot of ground for debate in which direction (if at all) the existing democratic systems should change in the future. Such debates, of course, suffer from all the usual problems of political debates in practice, and in this case these problems are especially aggravated by the lack of a universally accepted definition of the central object of debate.

What additionally complicates these issues is the fact that there are no answers to any of these questions that would be valid for all parts of the world. However politically incorrect such a statement might be, it seems pretty evident to me that in certain times and places, free elections will bring to power people worse than most autocrats and oligarchs who ever existed. I base this conclusion largely on personal experience, since this is pretty much what happened some 15 years ago in the part of the world where I come from. (Regardless of what opinion one might have about the wars in the area of the former Yugoslavia, it is indisputable that the politicians on all sides had clear majority support confirmed by elections.)


----------



## winklepicker

ernest_ said:


> Is democracy the worst mistake we have ever made?


 
Apparently the Saudis think so. Or at least the ruling elite does. What the rest of them think is hard to judge.


----------



## xarruc

I think some countries need to move on from democracy. It wasn’t a mistake but neither is it the be all and end all of governmental evolution. It would be absurd and arrogant to believe it was, surely? I’m sure the monarchists thought they had it right when they had put an end to the tribal warfare following the chief’s demise.

Democracy as we know it (political parties, upper and lower chambers, whips, head of winning party = country leader, PM appoints ministers etc.) does not stimulate best practice. Many years ago there was great debate to be had. New ideas. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism. There was a ruling upper class to be supplanted. There was issues of suffrage, equal rights, social welfare and so on to be discussed and established. The process that was started by Cromwell and his equivalents in other countries had to come to a close. I believe that debate has finished, at least in Western Europe. It’s not left wing and right-wing anymore, but left-of-center and right-of-center. Moderately-controlled capitalism with a reasonable bit of welfare. All politicians are the same. They want to stay in power. There second prerogative is to stay in power. And their third… well, to stay in power. They do what the pressure groups want. Highly vocal minority groups can make enough trouble to change policy. Rich companies can pay enough get policy changed. The Sun newspaper sways the vote. The political parties squabble over leadership battles or scoring points off the other side. Looming crises are ignored because the party knows it will be out of power by the time the shit hits the fan. Ministers are demoted or promoted according to the support they show for the leader, who naturally surrounds himself with loyal commanders. The portfolio of the minister is important only in the prestige it carries (home office is more important than culture, media n’ sport) and whether it’s a loaded gun. (Hence former health secretary John Reid’s epithet: John “Oh f*ck, not health” Reid)

We need to get away from this. I want the best foreign secretary at the home office. I want the head of the department for rural affairs to know about farming. I want people who will implement well thought-out plans with a determination, and see them through to the end, not to pass the buck and change portfolio, or rush through a loop-holed hastily drawn up act that doesn’t work, was never intended to work, but achieved it’s real goal which was to divert flack from the PM’s extramarital affair (or whatever).

In short I think we need to move towards a corporate model of government. Obviously democratic principles need to be present, as with shareholders, and power limited by some equivalent of the non-exec board. We need promotion on ability not loyalty. Strategy focused on advancement not popularity. Policy based on best practice and not winning minority votes.


----------



## ireney

xarruc  what part of the democratic system stops us from having "the best foreign secretary at the home office"? The fact that elections in many democracies has become a popularity contest has nothing to do with the "principles" of the democratic system. True, quite a few facets of this system have turned into the playground of demagogues but that does not mean that we need to change the system.


----------



## xarruc

If there are three parties, assuming that each party does select the best available to them, the chance of the best man of the possible candidates for the job being in the elected party is 1/3.

In a partyless system it would be 1.

The principle of party politics is that there is some ideological or at least tangible differences between them.


----------



## Fernando

I think, as Churchill, that democracy is the worst of the systems, till you consider all the rest.

The constituency is composed by ignorants, dumbs, bigots and outright criminals. I read at least a paper every day and I use to talk about politics during hours. However I do not feel I dedicate time enough for an informed vote.

Even so, when I talk with many countrymates the discussions show that:

- Most people have not the slightest interest in politics.
- Most people do not read a paper (or only "their" paper or TV or radio).
- Most people do not know even the basics about their constitution and their problems.

Bottom line:

In a democracy, we have what we deserve, period. Zapatero is the best Spain can afford, Bush is the best US can afford and so on.

People do not want excellence, people want someone they can look as an equal, not someone better than them. Consequence: We have middle-brained (half-brained?) politicians without long-sighted views.

But that is OK. It is what we are searching for.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Fernando said:


> Bush is the best US can afford and so on.


----------



## ernest_

It's been interesting so far and I mostly agree with what has been said. Coming back to my original idea, which I probably didn't explain too well, I meant that I feel we're afraid of trying new things. For technology to advance a lot of experimentation and trial and error is needed. The same applies to politics, for it is also a type of technology after all. Maybe now we know that socialism doesn't work, but that's just because somebody tried it. They thought it was a good idea at the time. We can't blame them for having tried, at least they had the guts.

I think Keikikoka hit the nail. Maybe what we need is a government not ran by human beings. A gigantic computer system could be the solution, then. We would just have to program certain variables, like the things we want to achieve, and let the computer dictate the rules and implacably prosecute those who fail to abide the law. Perhaps not now, but in the near future I think it is doable.


----------



## Fernando

As one Spaniard said once:

"Los experimentos, con limonada". (Experiments, only with lemonade).


----------



## don maico

Churchill described democracy as the least worst form of government.It has its faults but the alternatives dont even bear  thinking about. On top of all the dictators mentioned, add absolute monarchs.Never!
People fear change thats why they are so conservative. After all a devil you know is better than one you dont. This is why one of governments most important jobs is that of persuasion. Anyway dont assume dictators are radical . They will do anything to maintain their position of power but little for the betterment of the people.


----------



## germinal

xarruc said:


> I think some countries need to move on from democracy. It wasn’t a mistake but neither is it the be all and end all of governmental evolution. It would be absurd and arrogant to believe it was, surely? I’m sure the monarchists thought they had it right when they had put an end to the tribal warfare following the chief’s demise.
> 
> Democracy as we know it (political parties, upper and lower chambers, whips, head of winning party = country leader, PM appoints ministers etc.) does not stimulate best practice. Many years ago there was great debate to be had. New ideas. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism. There was a ruling upper class to be supplanted. There was issues of suffrage, equal rights, social welfare and so on to be discussed and established. The process that was started by Cromwell and his equivalents in other countries had to come to a close. I believe that debate has finished, at least in Western Europe. It’s not left wing and right-wing anymore, but left-of-center and right-of-center. Moderately-controlled capitalism with a reasonable bit of welfare. All politicians are the same. They want to stay in power. There second prerogative is to stay in power. And their third… well, to stay in power. They do what the pressure groups want. Highly vocal minority groups can make enough trouble to change policy. Rich companies can pay enough get policy changed. The Sun newspaper sways the vote. The political parties squabble over leadership battles or scoring points off the other side. Looming crises are ignored because the party knows it will be out of power by the time the shit hits the fan. Ministers are demoted or promoted according to the support they show for the leader, who naturally surrounds himself with loyal commanders. The portfolio of the minister is important only in the prestige it carries (home office is more important than culture, media n’ sport) and whether it’s a loaded gun. (Hence former health secretary John Reid’s epithet: John “Oh f*ck, not health” Reid)
> 
> We need to get away from this. I want the best foreign secretary at the home office. I want the head of the department for rural affairs to know about farming. I want people who will implement well thought-out plans with a determination, and see them through to the end, not to pass the buck and change portfolio, or rush through a loop-holed hastily drawn up act that doesn’t work, was never intended to work, but achieved it’s real goal which was to divert flack from the PM’s extramarital affair (or whatever).
> 
> In short I think we need to move towards a corporate model of government. Obviously democratic principles need to be present, as with shareholders, and power limited by some equivalent of the non-exec board. We need promotion on ability not loyalty. Strategy focused on advancement not popularity. Policy based on best practice and not winning minority votes.


 
So at a time when the world's resources are running out, when we have global warming with its attendant threats, you want to abandon the world's population completely to the mercy of the mindless corporate monsters that have caused all this?    We should be fighting the establishment of this dystopia - not rolling over for it.


----------



## xarruc

My little thought-experimentation in no way implies power by corporations/companies, merely to model government of the way that the majority of companies/corporations are run: namely working together to achieve the closest humanly possible to the aims of that organisation - which in this case would be a profitable, just, safe country. 

Charities and campaign groups work the same way. You have chairmen, MDs, heads of department etc. All work together to achieve something rather than in-fight to be top dog.


----------



## germinal

xarruc said:


> My little thought-experimentation in no way implies power by corporations/companies, merely to model government of the way that the majority of companies/corporations are run: namely working together to achieve the closest humanly possible to the aims of that organisation - which in this case would be a profitable, just, safe country.
> 
> Charities and campaign groups work the same way. You have chairmen, MDs, heads of department etc. All work together to achieve something rather than in-fight to be top dog.


 
Sounds like an arrangement which would very quickly degenerate into government by the Civil Service, to me, which would be sure to end in dictatorship.    

While I have a vote, it will not be cast for anyone who wishes to abolish democracy - look at what happened in Germany - look at what happened in Spain and all the other countries blessed by dictatorship.    

Glib solutions to the problems of society are easy to invent - less easy is living with the catastrophic results of these half-baked ideas.

.


----------



## Outsider

I kind of agree with what Fernando wrote above, but perhaps I'm not as pessimistic. Or perhaps I'm more.

The constituency can leave a lot to be desired at times, but the leadership is no better in general. The good thing about democracy is that even terrible leaders can't do too much damage for too long. Compare that with Saddam Hussein's decades of effective, unimpeded terror.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm glad Athaulf took the trouble to define terms.  Democracy has many forms.  Parliamentary democracies are able to—doesn't mean they use the ability—change relatively quickly in response to changes in popular will.  A system such as that in the US changes little over a period of years, and then abruptly if there is a change in both the legislative bodies, and/or a change in the legislature and also a change in the executive.  Once the change has occured, there is relative stability in direction for a few years.  

Small correction: The US system does have some constitutional limits on who may run for office, including place of birth and age.  It has also had some other dubious limits imposed, based on supposed ideological opposition to the Constitution itself. Look up "HUAC" for more detail.




			
				ernest_ said:
			
		

> Maybe what we need is a government not ran by human beings. A gigantic computer system could be the solution, then. We would just have to program certain variables, like the things we want to achieve, and let the computer dictate the rules and implacably prosecute those who fail to abide the law.


  This is an interesting idea.  It omits a discussion of how the program variables would be agreed to.  Democratically?  Who would be the MIS/IT/Computer Systems administrator?  How would that person be selected? By whom?

Anyone who has had dealings with a large corporate beaurocracy or government department will have memories of hearing statements like, "But that's the way the system works!"  Programmers make mistakes.  Systems analysts make mistakes, which are embedded in implacable code.  A large computer program is conservative in the extreme.  The longer it is in use, the more entrenched its benefits and its errors become.  The brave, thoughtful programmers together with the dull, unthinking ones acquire tremendous power.  

Should we move administrative power from flawed people to computer systems created and maintained by flawed people?


----------



## maxiogee

ernest_ said:


> Maybe what we need is a government not ran by human beings. A gigantic computer system could be the solution, then. We would just have to program certain variables, like the things we want to achieve, and let the computer dictate the rules and implacably prosecute those who fail to abide the law. Perhaps not now, but in the near future I think it is doable.


 
In the days when computers were only beginning to come into the public's consciousness Isaac Asimov wrote a short story based on this. It was a 'democratic' society and a super-computer picked a random citizen and their one vote decided everything. I can't remember the name of the story, but it was one of his early ones, I think.

=================================

The problem with *the will of the people* is that it depends on what alternatives are offered to them. Therein lies a tale of "the best of a bad lot" and "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't".
It also depends on what actions those who oppose the will of the people are prepared to take in furtherance of their ends.

I have a vote.
In local elections to our county council I have about a 1 in 3,000 say in who represents me.
In national elections to our parliament I have about a 1 in 14,000 say in who represents me.
In European elections to the European parliament I have about a 1 in 250,000 say in who represents me.

At all these elections I will have a vote under proportional representation to elect one of four representatives for the constituency. There may be about 14 candidates. Most of these will be representing about three or four 'main' parties, and the rest will be lesser parties and sectional interest candidates.

14 candidates may look like 'choice' - but come polling day it isn't, believe me. It's party hacks toeing a party line and making unfeasible promises. The less chance they have of being elected, the more outlandish the 'economic strategy' and the 'social policy'.

The more say I have in who represents me, it seems to me, the less power has been devolved to the forum in which that person sits.


----------



## germinal

<The more say I have in who represents me, it seems to me, the less power has been devolved to the forum in which that person sits.>

Quote Maxiogee.

So what's the alternative?

.


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Oh my, this is a very interesting thread!  Pity I'm already fed up of all that democracy vs other types of government  political chit-chat...  But it's not your fault, guys, blame it on _the voters_!  That's way better than our oh-so-drilled "por culpa del Gobierno"...   

As you can surely understand, topics that deal with politics and politicians are what Venezuelan people have as breakfast, lunch and supper every sad and pathetic day of our existance under the present -divisive & unfriendly- political conditions.  

It's so depressing to live surrounded by all this extremism.  The hatred (loathe? hate? spite?) displays that leaders of both factions throw over each other is barely tolerable.  Our people is dramatically --and I believe irreparably- divided.

I must say that I'm not particularly in favor or against any specific ideology, which nowadays is not the most popular (nor comfortable) position to stay in. Those backing up "democracy" (whatever that means) want me on their side.  So do the ones backing up "neo-socialism" (idem).  The truth is that I'm _evenly_ sick of both, and of any other ideology I've heard of, so far.

Borrowing bits and pieces from different writers, politicians, philosopher, and other characters who _are believed_ to have an opinion worthy to be heard, all I can say is:
- *Democracy (and whatever alike)*: If it is the government of the people, for the people, by the people, from the people, within the people, over the people, next to the people, etc etc etc, how can it actually be successful?  Who in the world said that _the people_ *know* how to rule a country?  That would be, more or less, what Fernando said some posts ago (here)

- *Dictatorships (and other totalitarian systems)*: Well, nobody likes to be forced to _anything_.  It is hard to believe that even now, in the XXI Century, some individuals still state that "the end justifies the means".  Perhaps it'll be fine if you're part of the majority, but no matter how many "improvements" a tough-headed leader can bring into a country, the minorities will still suffer... and suffer a *lot!*  How could such thing be justified?

*- Monarchy (in its purest and also mildest ways)*:  Is that even an option, for those who don't have it already?  Does it work for those who do have it?  Until what point?  How is it better than democracy, or comunism?

- *Clerical rulership (whatever the predominant -or simply powerful- religion it is)*:  Out of the question.

We could go on, and on, and on...  Do you think so will this thread?  Let me know, so that I go get some popcorns and cold drinks.

In my (humble, and not embraced by many others) opinion, human beings are not designed, nor capable, nor in position to rule other human beings.  But, who on earth could wholeheartedly agree with me?  And, what would we do, then?  Ban every government in the world?  That's a stupid idea, not to mention impossible.

So, what can we do?  Not much.  Just, try to get as informed as you can before you vote, if you are enabled to do so in your country of residence.  And, keep your vote *secret*, for goodness' sake!!


----------



## xarruc

> In my (humble, and not embraced by many others) opinion, human beings are not designed, nor capable, nor in position to rule other human beings. But, who on earth could wholeheartedly agree with me? And, what would we do, then? Ban every government in the world? That's a stupid idea, not to mention impossible.


 
I'll agree with you. 



> “Delight in these words is a widespread but depraved taste. Like soldiers and policemen, they have work to do, but, when the work is not there, the less we see of them the better.”​


H. W. Fowler (1858-1933, author of “Fowler’s Modern English Usage”)​ 
This was actually written about the word _respectively_, but I think one could perhaps replace "words" with "government" quite aptly.​


----------



## maxiogee

germinal said:


> <The more say I have in who represents me, it seems to me, the less power has been devolved to the forum in which that person sits.>
> 
> Quote Maxiogee.
> 
> So what's the alternative?
> 
> .



I didn't say that I was seeking an alternative.  I didn't come down on one side or the other of the topic. 
I was just commenting on the subsidiarity of the levels of governance to which I am subject.


----------



## Poetic Device

ernest_ said:


> Hello there,
> 
> I don't want you to think that I am the fascist type but honestly, don't you think that we've already had enough of democracy? It doesn't work. How much will it take for people to realise? I don't know, but sure as hell it will be a lot of time if we don't do something.
> 
> The argument goes like this: The problem is that society as a whole is very conservative. I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this sentence.  I find the world to be quite liberal.  People don't like changes. But improvement demands changes. Therefore, people prevents improvement. The conclusion obviously follows: we must get rid of people, but wait a minute... we can't do that! Why not?   So, basically, we are stuck with an outdated, possibly aberrant political system.
> 
> What do you think? Is democracy the worst mistake we have ever made? Is it a wonderful thing? Is it going to explode? Is it going to implode? Tell me about.


 
I don't believe democracy was or is a mistake.  If not anything, it's a blessing.  What I do believe is a problem is a large government.  zThat hinders a persons ability to be democratic.


----------



## cuchuflete

Other than repeating the oft-cited aphorisms about democracy being the least evil of the evils, I've been wondering what we might say in its favor.  How about this, which I plan to use the next time I write to "My" senator:

Dear Employee:


----------



## Qcumber

Democracy in the West has been taken over by an international mafia. They can have their puppets elected by brainswashing voters, corrupting and blackmailing influential people and gerrymandering constituencies. There is no hope. They are too ruthlessly clever and powerful. At best, they'll approach you and offer you to join them. In most cases they'll treat you as a thing to be used then discarded. Actually they only consider themselves as human beings.


----------



## TRG

Yes, it is, but I'm going to stay with it until such time as they decide to put me in charge of everything!


----------



## mbrlr

Democracy is never over-rated, so long as certain freedoms --- conscience, speech, press, religion --- are guaranteed.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> Small correction: The US system does have some constitutional limits on who may run for office, including place of birth and age.  It has also had some other dubious limits imposed, based on supposed ideological opposition to the Constitution itself. Look up "HUAC" for more detail.



True, I ignored such more or less technical limitations; what I meant to emphasize is that the modern U.S. is exceptional in that there are no legal limitations on the content of the political programs declared by the election candidates and political parties. You are right that this is a fairly recent state of affairs; it mostly rests on several precedents that are only a few decades old. And as a far more extreme example of different practices from the past, I would point out the treatment of anti-war activists during the First World War, when it was easy to get jailed even for arguing some straightforward logical implications of the Constitution itself.


----------



## mbrlr

We've not met the spirit or the words of our Constitution on many, many occasions --- witness our current President and Supreme Court --- but our Constitution, even though written, is a living thing just as the English unwritten constitution from which it came and we're always trying to live up to what it asks of us. We're not perfect --- witness the Civil War and witness the near-century past Plessy before Brown. But it always calls us, along with our heritage in the common law, to allow dissent and to honor it. We had German-Americans punished for being German during the First World War and we had Japanese-Americans imprisoned at several camps, two of them in my home state. But whenever we depart from what the Constitution and our Founders gave us in making the Constitution living and not a document based only on the understanding of the law in 1789, an argument directly contrary to the whole concept of common law, it calls us back and we do eventually have to come to terms with both our errors and their consequences. Justice Harlan, a Unionist Southerner, was on the court when Plessy was decided and he dissented, warning the court what it was doing and how deep the error was. It took almost 60 years for the Court and 70 years for Congress to face up to it, but the important fact is that they did and what called them to that point was the power of the basic points of our Constitutional liberties and guarantees and how contrary to them segregation was. Our law grows, and part of growth is occasional regression before rebounding back and using any errors made to grow and deepen our understanding of what liberty really means. Our law and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our other amendments are living things. Even Justice Scalia knows that, even if he argues it all stopped in 1789. You'll note his vote in the decision to put Bush in the White House in 2000 was to a decision the court specifically said was not to be viewed as precedent. They knew they were doing something bad and contrary to the Constitution and to our common law heritage, even if Scalia and his friends keep making this 1789 argument that would make us a civil law jurisdiction rather than a common law jurisdiction, and they at least had the decency not to make it binding in any way on courts in the future. But I digress. The main point is that democracy is not overrated, but the attendant guarantees of freedom and protection for those things vital to a democratic society also have to be in place.


----------



## mbrlr

I also do have to say, if I understand your argument correctly, that there are restrictions on political parties and what they may or may not do.  We're not a nation without laws or rules, and we also have 50 separate bodies of law that also govern our citizens and protect them (or harm them).  We're very much a nation founded by lawyers, and lawyers from the common law tradition who well understood that protections were needed, but that all of those issues, even freedom of speech, could be and should be occasionally litigated...and then litigated again.  Our Founders, great but imperfect, understood that people are prone to give away their liberties and they crafted a document and a republic to make it very hard for restrictions on those liberties not to be challenged and overcome.


----------



## fenixpollo

xarruc said:


> My little thought-experimentation in no way implies power by corporations/companies, merely to model government of the way that the majority of companies/corporations are run: namely working together to achieve the closest humanly possible to the aims of that organisation - which in this case would be a profitable, just, safe country.
> 
> Charities and campaign groups work the same way. You have chairmen, MDs, heads of department etc. All work together to achieve something rather than in-fight to be top dog.


 Many companies countries already have corporate model of government: the shareholders (voters) elect the board of directors (Parliament) which then selects the president (president), who then appoints his vice presidents (the cabinet of ministers), and they hire the career workers to staff the company (the bureacracy).

You have obviously never worked for a corporation and seen all of the politicking, maneuvering and infighting that goes on so that one can be promoted.

Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Once we're ready to get beyond capitalism, our government will need to change and adapt. But I see more and more capitalism in the world, which means that democracy is even more relevant than it used to be -- not less so.


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:


> Capitalism and democracy go hand in hand.


Would you say that ancient Athens was a capitalist society? That's a point of view I'd never heard...


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> Would you say that ancient Athens was a capitalist society? That's a point of view I'd never heard...



I know nothing about the economic structure or system of ancient Athens. How would you characterize it?


----------



## ireney

Outsider even taking into consideration how different things went back then I'd call it a "capitalistic" system. True, not all of the characteristics of what we call capitalism today cannot be found in the economic system of ancient Athens but if we go by the main definition of capitalism suits the Athenian economic system just fine.


----------



## Outsider

I am by no means well versed in this, but what I remember reading is that capitalism proper was born around the Renaissance in Western Europe (the whole feudalism --> capitalism --> socialism equation, though the third stage is debated, neddless to say).

I'm not sure what I'd call the ancient Athenian society. Its roots were clearly in an agrarian aristocratic society, but of course all that had changed by the time it became a democracy.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> I am by no means well versed in this, but what I remember reading is that capitalism proper was born around the Renaissance in Western Europe (the whole feudalism --> capitalism --> socialism equation, though the third stage is debated, neddless to say).
> 
> I'm not sure what I'd call the ancient Athenian society. Its roots were clearly in an agrarian aristocratic society, but of course all that had changed by the time it became a democracy.


Superficial research on Ancient Athens (wikipedia) suggests the presence of many of the ingredients of capitalism, including trade/commerce, money lending (capital!), private ownership of agrarian, nautical and other assets.


----------



## Outsider

Of course trade is a old as mankind, and even the Soviets had it, but that doesn't make a society capitalist. In ancient classical societies, commerce was usually looked down upon, and reserved for the lower classes or for foreigners (the metecs, who were placed just one step above slaves). Whereas in a capitalist society the elites do their best to control trade and other sources of money personally.


----------



## ireney

Outsider we are talking about democratic Athens right? _What_ lower class? I could go on but I'm afraid we are going down a road that will lead us to the dreaded lands of off-topicness and then I will have to delete our posts (not a good start, deleting your own posts).


----------



## Outsider

ireney said:


> Outsider we are talking about democratic Athens right?


Yes, since this thread _is_ about democracy!



ireney said:


> _What_ lower class?


I guess I did not phrase that very well. I should have said that metecs were not at the top of the Athenian society, quite the contrary.



ireney said:


> I could go on but I'm afraid we are going down a road that will lead us to the dreaded lands of off-topicness and then I will have to delete our posts (not a good start, deleting your own posts).


I hadn't noticed you were a moderator now. There's no indication in your profile.


----------



## eduarodi

ernest_ said:


> Hello there,
> 
> I don't want you to think that I am the fascist type but honestly, don't you think that we've already had enough of democracy? It doesn't work. How much will it take for people to realise? I don't know, but sure as hell it will be a lot of time if we don't do something.
> 
> The argument goes like this: The problem is that society as a whole is very conservative. People don't like changes. But improvement demands changes. Therefore, people prevents improvement. The conclusion obviously follows: we must get rid of people, but wait a minute... we can't do that! So, basically, we are stuck with an outdated, possibly aberrant political system.
> 
> What do you think? Is democracy the worst mistake we have ever made? Is it a wonderful thing? Is it going to explode? Is it going to implode? Tell me about.


Democracy is definitely the best system we know. It's not perfect, and the mistake some people make is thinking it *is* perfect.

People are conservative -in my opinion- because they are made to be conservative. You're in a country were Franco's dictatorship was longer than the time elapsed ever since. In other words, the democracy after Franco hasn't been as long as Franco's rule yet. In my country, we've been under longer periods of dictatorship than periods of democracy for over fifty years (1930-1983). We haven't actually learnt what democracy is. We're still afraid, and when people are afraid, they don't want to change. I hope that when we start to get really used to democracy, we'll value it more, and we'll get more daring, and less conservative.


----------



## fenixpollo

ireney said:


> Outsider we are talking about democratic Athens right? _What_ lower class?


I don't think it's off topic to discuss the relationship between democracy and capitalism. I'm returning to this thread because I think that capitalism is overrated, but democracy is not overrated; however, I'm interested in exploring why. 

I don't think we can truly compare ancient Athens accurately with our modern, more global systems. However, to answer the question posed above, I turn to that ubiquitous and dubious resource:


			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> The reforms of Solon dealt with both political and economic issues. The economic power of the _Eupatridae_ was reduced by abolishing slavery as a punishment for debt, breaking up large landed estates and freeing up trade and *commerce*, which allowed the emergence of a prosperous urban trading class. Politically, Solon divided the Athenians into four classes, based on their wealth and their ability to perform military service. The poorest class, the _Thetes_, who were the majority of the population, received *political rights* for the first time, being able to vote in the _Ecclesia_ (Assembly), but only the upper classes could hold political office.


 It appears, on the surface, that some measure of both democracy and capitalism were present in Athens (disrupted by periods of dictatorship) by about 400 B.C.

My comment linking capitalism and democracy was not so much looking for a cause-effect relationship -- it was just an observation that a truly open market is essentially egalitarian, just as a truly open democracy is egalitarian. It's hard to have an egalitarian market economy within a society where the political or social systems are extremely hierarchichal or autocratic.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Speaking about dictatorships: what was wrong with Salazar in Portugal? He did exceptional work there as a ruler. I also don't consider Pinochet be such an evil fogure as he is portrayed by the media. Look at the alternative: a communist state with the population starving. Yeah, that's surely better than killing off some Cuban "tourists" (or should I say terrorists?)...


----------



## Lombard Beige

CrazyArcher said:


> Speaking about dictatorships: what was wrong with Salazar in Portugal? He did exceptional work there as a ruler. ...



Salazar left a very strong currency, but a RADICAL body like the OECD once said: "Portugal's problem is not to strengthen its currency, but to raise the standard of living of its people" (one of the lowest in Europe at the time).

Also you should ask the Angolans etc. what they remember of Salazar's rule.

Lastly, I don't think Salazar averted any communist threat, at the time when he came to power.

regards


----------



## Benjy

CrazyArcher said:


> Speaking about dictatorships: what was wrong with Salazar in Portugal? He did exceptional work there as a ruler. I also don't consider Pinochet be such an evil fogure as he is portrayed by the media. Look at the alternative: a communist state with the population starving. Yeah, that's surely better than killing off some Cuban "tourists" (or should I say terrorists?)...



The problem with any dictatorship is that whislt there may occasionally arise exceptional men who do great things with the most selfless intentions, most people are not like that. If we could always guarantee that the man in charge was the best brightest and most likely to do "the right thing" (I'll define this loosely as the thing most susceptible to cause the greatest good to the greatest nukber) with no hidden interests etc. , in short the "ideal" ruler then he would indeed be preferable to *any* democracy. But that is pure fantasy. Democracy is a failsafe. A fair one at that too as in the end we have no one to blame but ourselves (collectively).


----------



## Poetic Device

I am starting to think that in order for democracy to really work, we need to vote in a farmer and not a lawyer...  (If that makes any sense.)


----------



## Lombard Beige

mbrlr said:


> ... Our law and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our other amendments are living things. ... Even Justice Scalia knows that, even if he argues it all stopped in 1789. You'll note his vote in the decision to put Bush in the White House in 2000 was to a decision the court specifically said was not to be viewed as precedent. They knew they were doing something bad and contrary to the Constitution and to our *common law* heritage, even if Scalia and his friends keep making this 1789 argument that would make us a *civil law* jurisdiction rather than a *common law* jurisdiction, and they at least had the decency not to make it binding in any way on courts in the future. ...The main point is that *democracy *is not overrated, but the attendant guarantees of freedom and protection for those things vital to a democratic society also have to be in place.
> 
> ... We're not a nation without laws or rules, and we also have 50 separate bodies of law that also govern our citizens and protect them (or harm them). We're very much a nation founded by lawyers, and lawyers from the* common law* tradition who well understood that protections were needed, but that all of those issues, even freedom of speech, could be and should be occasionally litigated...and then litigated again. ...


 
Well, I don't think anyone would argue that Switzerland is not, as I keep insisting, *as free and democratic* as the USA, and in some ways possibly more so; it's neutral, for example (OK that's because it's so small). But Switzerland is a *civil law* jurisdiction, and their way of amending their written constitution and their laws is not so much through the courts as through systematic referendums and citizen initiatives. (Another example of a universally recognized *democratic civil law* country is *the Netherlands*). So, although I can see some advantages in *common law* in criminal matters, *civil law* is not such a monstrous system as some English speakers seem to think. Neither is *common law* an essential component of democracy. We need only consider *Louisiana*, *Puerto Rico*, *Québec *and *Scotland, *which are “mixed jurisdictions” in which the *civil law* tradition still plays an important role. * In what ways should they to be considered *less democratic* than, respectively, *Arkansas*, *U.S. Virgin Islands*, *Ontario *and *Northern Ireland*, with their *common law* tradition?

_* See “Mixed Jurisdictions: Common Law vs. Civil Law (Codified and Uncodified)”, an article by  Prof. William Tetley, Q.C. (Queen's Counsel, Canada), accessible on the Internet.

_regards_
_


----------



## cuchuflete

CrazyArcher said:


> Speaking about dictatorships: what was wrong with Salazar in Portugal? He did exceptional work there as a ruler. I also don't consider Pinochet be such an evil fogure as he is portrayed by the media. Look at the alternative: a communist state with the population starving. Yeah, that's surely better than killing off some Cuban "tourists" (or should I say terrorists?)...



Perhaps you should learn something about the PIDE.  If you believe that torture and murder of political opponents is an acceptable part of a ruler's system of governance, I am sure you can find a place to live that emulates the mechanisms used by Pinochet and Salazar.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Poetic Device said:


> I am starting to think that in order for democracy to really work, we need to vote in a farmer and not a lawyer...  (If that makes any sense.)


Well, as *mbrir*, says the USA is  



mbrlr said:


> ... very much a nation founded by lawyers ... from the common law tradition ...


Now, I realize that the the *common law* is considered to be a part of *democracy* as understood by most English speakers, but if you look at the figures I've calculated for a few countries, all *democratic *for many years and some, like Switzerland, Holland and Scotland, for centuries, we see that the common law is, above all, a great job creator for “_droves of lawyers_”, which can possibly lead to a situation of: government of the people _by the lawyers and for the lawyers. 
[Disclaimer for over-zealous lawyers: I am not saying that this is currently so, but that it is an ever-present risk, and of course I am saying it with a degree of intended irony!]_

_*Country / number of lawyers / lawyers per inhabitants*_
(sources: information available on the Internet)
*Common law:  * 
USA: 950,000 = *1 : 317*  
UK less Scotland: 144'827 = 1 :380
Canada less PQ: 53637 = 1: 470
*Mixed systems:  * 
Scotland: 11,622 = 1: 438   
Québec (PQ): 13,363 = 1 : 572
(I find it interesting that in these jurisdictions where civil law and Roman law principles play an important role, there are FEWER lawyers)
 *Civil law (codified law): * 
Switzerland 6,804 = 1 : 1073   
Netherlands 12,200 = 1 : 1338   
France 40,775 = *1 : 1465*  
Japan 17,000 = *1: 7530* 
(Japan is, of course, exceptional for cultural reasons, but technically they use a code based on the Prussian !!! civil code) 

E&OE (errors and omissions excepted, i.e. I retyped and calculated the figures myself)

I don't want to overinsist on this point of the *common law*, but I do think it is important to separate it from the idea of *democracy*. In other words, countries like Switzerland and Holland prove that the *civil law* is perfectly compatible with democracy and has been for centuries.

regards


----------



## ireney

Greece (civil law): 29.000 lawyers in a population of 11,244,118 (2005 est) or 10,934,097 (census of 2001) That makes it roughly *1:377*  if my calculations are correct 

Edit: I purposely do not answer to any ancient Greek comment for I am afraid that, to fully answer that, I will lead the conversation off-topic since there are many parameters that have to be taken into consideration that are not directly linked to democracy and/or capitalism (plus there was no actual economic theory around all the way back then)


----------



## Lombard Beige

ireney said:


> Greece (civil law): 29.000 lawyers in a population of 11,244,118 (2005 est) or 10,934,097 (census of 2001) That makes it roughly *1:377*  if my calculations are correct...


   Thanks for the input. Looking at the figures for Spain 1 : 323 and Italy 1 : 403, I see a similarity between the Mediterranean countries, but a dissimilarity with the N-W European countries that I used for my comparison with the English-speaking countries. One of the reasons for this is perhaps that in the N-W European countries there has been a continuity of democracy comparable to the English-speaking countries, whereas the Mediterranean countries have, unfortunately, oscillated between democracy and dictatorship. So, like Japan, I think they are not directly comparable.  

What I find more significant is the comparison between Québec and the rest of Canada and between England and Scotland, but Holland and England are also good comparisons, I think. (The Dutch have never experienced a dictatorship except under the Nazis, I believe, and Switzerland not since the times of William Tell).

As further confirmation of my idea of comparing like with like, the figures for the Scandinavian countries, which have their own Civil Law system, i.e. not directly inspired by the French codes, are as follows:    

Canada: 1 : 490 (the least lawyer-ridden of the common law countries) 
Norway:1: 784, 
Denmark: 1 : 1158,  
Sweden: 1 : 2104 (wow!). 

Three more, which I think confirm my hypothesis (that's a nice Greek word!).

    1) Australia: 1 : 373 : The Aussies out-lawyer the Greeks (377) and are creeping up on the Yanks!  

2) Portugal: 1 : 446 : Less lawyers than Italy, but slightly more than Common Law Canada (less PQ) (470, 490 is Canada as a whole), confirms the Mediterranean/Southern Europe hypothesis, I think. 

3) Belgium: 1 : 707 : Slightly more lawyers than Norway, but maybe there's a reason. Belgium has 6,088 French-speaking lawyers and 8,441 Flemish-speaking lawyers, so there's a degree of overlap. Norway also has two official languages, Bokmal and Nynorsk, so perhaps that explains why Norway has 5,770 lawyers against Denmark's 4,635 and Sweden's very low 4,321. So, while the Aussies rival the Yanks, the Swedes rival the Japanese!


  regards


----------



## John-Paul

Democracy is nothing, it's just a way of organizing our taxes. Everybody who pays taxes votes. That's the only constant.  I do believe voting is important, but we shouldn't fool ourselves, most people vote the same way they buy toiletpaper. Look at history, I don't think we're doing that bad right now. Yes there should be improvements in the system, people should get more involved and there is a need for ideas. It's too bad people vote for the people or the parties who are electable, and not so much capable. But hasn't Plato chewed this all out for us?


----------



## CrazyArcher

Benjy said:


> The problem with any dictatorship is that whislt there may occasionally arise exceptional men who do great things with the most selfless intentions, most people are not like that. If we could always guarantee that the man in charge was the best brightest and most likely to do "the right thing" (I'll define this loosely as the thing most susceptible to cause the greatest good to the greatest nukber) with no hidden interests etc. , in short the "ideal" ruler then he would indeed be preferable to *any* democracy. But that is pure fantasy. Democracy is a failsafe. A fair one at that too as in the end we have no one to blame but ourselves (collectively).



Yes, I'm aware of this.
In my opinion the best way to govern a country is some technocracy: everything should be run by professionals. After all, running a country and running a business is almost the same thing, as it was said before. And about all the corporate undercrapet struggles: they are unevitable, that's the human nature.


----------



## cuchuflete

CrazyArcher said:


> Yes, I'm aware of this.
> In my opinion the best way to govern a country is some technocracy: everything should be run by professionals. After all, running a country and running a business is almost the same thing, as it was said before. And about all the corporate undercrapet struggles: they are unevitable, that's the human nature.



Whatever you may have intended by "undercrapet struggles", I do not wish you the torture and murder of tens of thousands committed by the regimes of Pinochet and Salazar, whom you approve of.  Those were not technocrats, but tyrants.  I suppose you can find nice things to say about Hitler and the autobahn also.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Recalling that my purpose is to establish that countries can be fully *democratic* even if they do not follow the *common law* school, on the basis of our discussions so far, I propose a new grouping. I recalculated the data for Greece on the basis of my data sources (so that the results would be homogeneous), and the results are as follows. 

(_Congratulations Ireney, you have out-lawyered the Yanks!_ )

_*Country / number of lawyers / lawyers per inhabitants*_
(sources: information available on the Internet)

*Common law + Civil law (Southern Europe only *)*
Greece: 35,000           = 1 : 304 *
USA: 950,000         = 1 : 317   
Spain:    138,369         = 1 : 323 *  
Australia: 55,000        = 1 : 373
UK: 156,449             = 1 : 385
UK less Scotland: 144,827     = 1 : 380
Italy: 144,000         = 1 : 403 *
Portugal: 22,575         = 1 : 446 *
Canada less PQ: 53,637     = 1 : 470
New Zealand: 7574        = 1 : 502
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Ireland: 7500            = 1 : 567  [/FONT] 
*Mixed systems:  * 
Scotland: 11,622         = 1 : 438   
Canada: 67,000         = 1 : 490
Québec (PQ): 13,363     = 1 : 572
*Civil law (codified law): * 
Germany: 133,113        = 1 : 625 
Belgium: 14,529        = 1 : 707
Norway: 5770        = 1 : 784
Switzerland 6,804         = 1 : 1073   
Denmark: 4634        = 1 : 1158
Netherlands 12,200         = 1 : 1338   
France 40,775         = 1 : 1465   
Austria: 4,678        = 1 : 1746  
Sweden: 4321        = 1 : 2104
Finland: 1,735        = 1 : 2969   

Japan 17,000         = 1 : 7530  

Germany requires a comment: Firstly, in its group, it is the only country that has had serious issues with *democracy* in the last century. Secondly, Germany is the homeland (or perhaps Fatherland) of “Professors' Law”, where they deal in concepts like the “Abstact Real Contract” (with kapitals!). Austria, with its 18th Century _General Civil Code_ does much better, even than my favourite Switzerland, but perhaps we have discovered the reason why Switzerland has more lawyers. It has four official languages, so like Belgium there must be some overlap. 

Japan remains an exception, because of the cultural differences, as mentioned before. Similarly, the Southern European countries, like Germany, have had issues with *democracy *in recent times, and they have an aberrantly high number of lawyers (many of whom are also politicians, as in the USA), which differentiates them from their neighbours, cf. Italy vs France (145,000 to 41 thousand).

*Conclusion:* the legal system (Civil Law vs Common Law) is not a determining factor for democracy, but it is important in relation to the number of lawyers. 
 
regards


----------



## Kajjo

I really do not comprehend what you are arguing here. Please enlighten me!

Is a low or high lawyer/population rate better or worse in your opinion?
What does it have to do with democracy?

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Lombard Beige said:


> _*Country / number of lawyers / lawyers per inhabitants*_
> (sources: information available on the Internet)
> [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Ireland: 7500            = 1 : 567  [/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I would query the source and accuracy of that figure, LB.[/FONT]
Only this morning I spoke to someone in the Incorporated Law Society (The governing body for solicitors) and was told there are 7,000 solicitors in Ireland.
Then I went to the website of The Bar Council and got a number 1,873 for the number of barristers here. These two must be added together to get the total number of "lawyers" working in the Éire.

The CSO issues preliminary results of the 2006 Census showing Ireland as having a population of 4,234,925. That couples with the solicitors and barristers figures gives a ration of 1 : 479


But
I tend to go along with Kajjo's "What's this got to do with democracy?"
I would suggest that a lot of the lawyers are working in the 'legal' department of large companies and never handled a court-case int heir life, and I can speak from knowledge of three close acquaintances when I say that not all barristers earn their living 'at the Bar' - one is an account exectuive in a PR firm, another is a functionary in a Market Research Organisation and the last is an advertising sales rep for any low-interest magazine which will have him.

A state may be superflous with legal eagles - but just not be using them correctly.
There appears to be a mind-set among democratically elected parliamentarians (and I'm not just talking of Ireland) which makes them see the enactment of laws as a good thing - but the abolition of old and outdated laws as a bad thing. Thus the number of statutes which govern the life of Séan Citizen grows longer, and longer.

I recently inquired of our Department of Justice "Is 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' a good summary of an accused person's situation?", and was rapidly told that this is true. "Well then." sez I, "Could you send me out a copy of every piece of legislation which has a bearing on the life and behaviour of the ordinary citizen?"
After the telephonist has stopped laughing I was advised I might have more luck with the "Government Publications Office".
They steadfastly refused to help my unless I name the Act I was interested in.

My purpose was more than jocular - I am, as a native of this place, somehow supposed to acquire a working knowledge of what laws govern me - laws which may well have been passed 100 or more years before my birth. Hmmmph
If Father (Drip) Madden, my maths teacher couldn't get my head around Calculus when he had access to it for forty minutes a day, five days a week for two years - - - I wish them luck getting my head around the arcane and frequently ridiculously outdated laws of Ireland.
But my real concern in this is "What about the immigrant?"
Can any legal system be 'sane' which expects that a non-Native speaker of the language, in the country for less than a month, ought to be aware of what laws govern their behaviour.

Let's elect only those politicians who promise to cut out, or at the very least update, laws which should no longer be on the stature books.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Response to Kajjo:

My arguments go back to these thoughts:



mbrlr said:


> ... We're not a nation without laws or rules, and we also have 50 separate bodies of law that also govern our citizens and protect them (or harm them).  We're very much a nation founded by lawyers, and lawyers from the common law tradition who well understood that protections were needed, but that all of those issues, even freedom of speech, could be and should be occasionally litigated...and then litigated again.  Our Founders, great but imperfect, understood that people are prone to give away their liberties and they crafted a document and a republic to make it very hard for restrictions on those liberties not to be challenged and overcome.



My position is that a country can be fully *democratic *without having a system of *Common Law* and that the constitution, etc., can be amended equally well though processes such as those used in Switzerland, a civil law country, of referendums, citizens initiatives, etc. What I am trying to point out is that democracy and Common Law are not indissolubly bound. See also the thread on legal systems in Europe, where, as I understood it, it was argued that the Civil Law is a threat to democracy, freedom, etc. So Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, etc. are not equally democratic as the US or the UK?

IMHO, the lower the lawyer/population rate the better. It means that the system is simple and this improves the general quality of life. 

regards


----------



## Lombard Beige

maxiogee said:


> [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I would query the source and accuracy of that figure, LB. ...[/FONT]



My main source is a document entitled:

 Number of lawyers in CCBE Member Bars, Last update 2005

The data for non European countries comes from other sources, I found on the Internet. For example, the figure for US lawyers comes from an official US site, etc. I agree that the data could be improved, but I'm merely arguing a point, so I tried to use the same data for all countries, cf. for Greece. My data gives a higher figure for lawyers than Ireney's, in the case of Ireland, instead, it's the opposite. 

Also, in this context, I don't think that it is important whether lawyers are office lawyers or court lawyers. The fact that a country like highly democratic Sweden can function WELL with just 4300 lawyers, I think should be a model for others, rather than the 8,800 lawyers that you indicate for ROI. (Pity though, because it puts Ireland below New Zealand and Canada, but perhaps that's due to my sources.) 

regards


----------



## Kajjo

Lombard Beige said:


> IMHO, the lower the lawyer/population rate the better. It means that the system is simple and this improves the general quality of life.


Thanks a lot for this swift answer. The last concise sentence resolved it all.  I absolutely agree that the less lawyers are needed, the better it is for a society. I was afraid the argument could point into the opposite direction...

My comment to the original topic of this thread:

a) An excellent monarch or dictator is the best a people can have.
b) Unfortunately, history teaches that those are extremely rare.
c) Democracy is the best way to ensure not to have a bad monarch or dictator.
d) Bad monarchs or dictators are the worst that can happen to a people.
e) Unfortunately, history teaches those are quite common.

I conclude that I am happy with democracy, even in view of all the obvious limitations and "collateral damages".

I agree that most current democracies do not really listen to the people, but are politics gone wild, living in their own political world. However, the problem with democracy is not only the politics, it is also the "demos" part, the people: Most people are prone to volatile opinions, are not capable of deciding issues based on facts instead of beliefs, and majority decisions in most cases do not care for minorities of any size (45% could be a minority).

Kajjo


----------



## Lombard Beige

Kajjo said:


> Thanks a lot for this swift answer. The last concise sentence resolved it all.  I absolutely agree that the less lawyers are needed, the better it is for a society. I was afraid the argument could point into the opposite direction...



Definitely not. Look at the Southern European countries, where they have Civil Law as in Switzerland or Holland, but have a number of lawyers similar to the Common Law countries. Judging from Italy, I think this is because many of the lawyers who are not involved full time in politics are involved in private arbitration and in very careful drafting of agreements, etc., to make up for the tremendously long times of the courts.

In answering you, instead, I was afraid that you wanted to extoll the merits of the BGB "Abstract Real Contract", etc. 

regards


----------



## Lombard Beige

Second answer:



Kajjo said:


> ...I absolutely agree that the less lawyers are needed, the better it is for a society. ...



And, what about the following data for the same countries?

*doctors per inhabitants    *
Greece: 50,598    = 1 : 222    
Italy: 255,790    = 1 : 227
Belgium: 40,073    = 1 : 256
Switzerland: 26,287    = 1 : 278     
Denmark: 18,792    = 1 : 285    
Sweden: 31,815    = 1 : 286    
France: 197,231    = 1 : 303   
Germany: 274,732     = 1 : 303
Austria: 26,961     = 1 : 303
Portugal: 32,269    = 1 : 312
Finland: 15,990    = 1 : 323
Netherlands: 50,586    = 1 : 326           
Norway: 13,575    = 1 : 333    
Spain:    129,656    = 1 : 345

Australia: 51,388    = 1 : 400
Ireland: 10,164     = 1 : 416
USA: 700,000        = 1 : 430  
New Zealand: 8,747 = 1 : 476
UK: 126,422        = 1 : 476     
Canada: 68,962    = 1 : 476     

Japan: 256,170    = 1 : 500  

Here the order is completely reversed. While the Common Law countries are rich in lawyers, they are poor in doctors. I'm not saying that the two things are related, but perhaps there is even more incentive to be a lawyer than a doctor in certain countries. Also, I'm not saying that a country with a lot of doctors is more democratic, but perhaps looking after health has something to do with democracy, or at least quality of life, or not?

regards


----------



## cuchuflete

I am eagerly awaiting the data to show the ratio of marine biologists to total population in each democratic and undemocratic nation.


----------



## maxiogee

Lombard Beige said:


> Also, I'm not saying that a country with a lot of doctors is more democratic, but perhaps looking after health has something to do with democracy, or at least quality of life, or not?



Not if the doctors are working in private clinics to which the less affluent have no recourse and to which only those whose (independent)health insurance is being paid at a level which will dover such private clinics.

Then there is the anomaly of who is paying the doctor's income. Many, if not all, specialist doctors who treat patients in public hospitals here are also running a private practice.
It is not unknown here in Ireland for there to be a long waiting list for a public patient to see a specialist in a particular field. But if they can afford to 'go private' they can see the same person in a couple of weeks - often in a bed in a public hospital.
When one of our most recently-opened hospitals was being built there was a long-running dispute between the Department of Health and The Medical Council - The doctors were refusing to work in the new hospital unless the authorities were prepared to reserve a per-set number of beds for them to use for private patients.
It was despicable - from a so-called 'caring' service.


----------



## Lombard Beige

cuchuflete said:


> I am eagerly awaiting the data to show the ratio of marine biologists to total population in each democratic and undemocratic nation.



I realize that the data on doctors is not directly related to democracy, but as I found them as a was looking for the data on lawyers, I thought that rather than throw them away, I would pass them on, if only for curiosity value. However, there is a strange coincidence in that the same countries considered for lawyers grouped together for doctors fall into two clear cut groups corresponding to their legal system. Is that a coincidence?  I know doctors are well paid in the USA, but perhaps a lawyer is potentially even better paid, or perhaps is easier to become a lawyer? 

Re marine biologists: Well I suppose one could think of other similar professions such as music critics, piano tuners and plumbers, although (Polish) plumbers did recently play an important role in European democracy during the French referendum on the European constitution.

Regards


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I am eagerly awaiting the data to show the ratio of marine biologists to total population in each democratic and undemocratic nation.



Don't be silly!

Undemocratic nations don't allow people to become marine biologists - they might swim away!

Surely the fact that not many people can find great things to say about democracy, and another not many people can find dire things to say about democracy indicates that it is - like a well-functioning appliance - doing its task, unobtrusively.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> Don't be silly!
> 
> Undemocratic nations don't allow people to become marine biologists - they might swim away!
> 
> Surely the fact that not many people can find great things to say about democracy, and another not many people can find dire things to say about democracy indicates that it is - like a well-functioning appliance - doing its task, unobtrusively.




✒ 'Tis my democratic right to be silly!  I are an animal, and as such am entitled to human rights.  I read that here in this forum.  


Nations that do not produce many inventions have less need of Intellectual Property lawyers.
Nations that have certain undemocratic forms of government may own all inventions, obviating the need for this branch of law entirely.

You are right Tony.  Democracy is flawed, but as many wise people have suggested, it is notably less flawed than the alternatives.  

Back to the thread topic-- Is it overrated?   Well I don't know what its rating is, or who is doing the rating.  

Democracy shares a characteristic with other governance systems- Citizens will complain about it.
Beyond that, some of them may do something about it, such as campaign for office, blabber on the radio, write letters to editors and so on.  In undemocratic nations, I guess those same people would spend their time doing other things, such as....joining the secret police and reporting on their friends and neighbors?


----------



## germinal

cuchuflete said:


> ✒
> 
> 
> Democracy shares a characteristic with other governance systems- Citizens will complain about it.
> Beyond that, some of them may do something about it, such as campaign for office, blabber on the radio, write letters to editors and so on. In undemocratic nations, I guess those same people would spend their time doing other things, such as....joining the secret police and reporting on their friends and neighbors?


 
I usually agree with your wise comments Cuchu but here, I suggest that the people you mention might be cowed into silence, or if not, they would very probably run the risk of prison or execution after a show-trial or they may be simply `disappeared`.    

Some might point to Guantanamo here but this seems to me to be an emergency measure, such as any government might take against a perceived imminent threat in a war situation and even so, the processes that guard our democracies were at work immediately to make sure that no serious injustice will be perpetrated. 

.


----------



## Lombard Beige

More on marine biologists and Polish plumbers.

Well, there is one place where marine biologists must play a significant role in the democratic process, i.e. the Principality of Monaco, where alongside another significant social group, croupiers, they are comparable to say farmers and fishermen in other countries 

More data: The Oceanographic Museum had 500,000 visitors last year, so its economic role must be significant, while the Casino alone contributed 5% of total revenue.

Re the Polish plumber, instead, unfortunately I had to rush out to collect my grandson from school, so I wasn't able to explain this to our Transatlantic readers, who may not be aware of what happened. 

Well, during the French referendum campaign, a democratic process, the "Polish plumber" problem was raised. In short, under a European directive, instead of hiring a local plumber, I can contact a Polish firm, and they send me all the plumbers I need PAID AT POLISH RATES!  

This is all part of a liberalization drive, and the idea is to emulate the USA, where a New York resident can contract for example a New Jersey plumber. But Europe has not yet reached the same level of integration and using a Polish plumber is considered by many as a not so subtle form of exploitation. I won't continue because perhaps others may have more to say on the subject.

Lastly, the Polish plumber reference has nothing to do with the "d...b P...l...ck" cliché, in fact the Poles (their Government) reacted rather intelligently and ran an advertising campaign featuring a bodybuilder available for various kinds of plumbing services. 

regards


----------



## CrazyArcher

cuchuflete said:


> Whatever you may have intended by "undercrapet struggles", I do not wish you the torture and murder of tens of thousands committed by the regimes of Pinochet and Salazar, whom you approve of.  Those were not technocrats, but tyrants.  I suppose you can find nice things to say about Hitler and the autobahn also.



Tens of thousands? What are your sources of these figures?


----------



## cuchuflete

CrazyArcher said:


> Tens of thousands? What are your sources of these figures?



Do your own research.  Isn't a single individual tortured by a competent technocrat enough to get your attention?  

I retract my earlier statements.  I do wish you life under one of those you seem to so admire.  
Why don't you go to Buenos Aires and meet some of the grandmothers still asking what happened to their family members.  They have equivalents in Chile.


----------



## cuchuflete

germinal said:


> I usually agree with your wise comments Cuchu but here, I suggest that the people you mention might be cowed into silence, or if not, they would very probably run the risk of prison or execution after a show-trial or they may be simply `disappeared`.
> 
> Some might point to Guantanamo here but this seems to me to be an emergency measure, such as any government might take against a perceived imminent threat in a war situation and even so, the processes that guard our democracies were at work immediately to make sure that no serious injustice will be perpetrated.
> 
> .



Hi Germinal,
I suspect we agree more than you may have thought.  If you refer to a democratic regime that falls into totalitarian hands, of course many people will be intimidated into silence. Others will be
taken into 'custody', and interrogated, and sometimes tortured and killed.  Trials become optional.
Others will collaborate.

Guantánamo is a painful example of the failings of democracy.  I fear that the absence of due process of law, or the application of _ex post facto_ law, are hardly the stuff of democratic ideals.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> I fear that the absence of due process of law, or the application of _ex post facto_ law, are hardly the stuff of democratic ideals.



Of _liberal democratic_ ideals, perhaps. (I'm using the word "liberal" in its most general meaning, not the one it has acquired in modern U.S. politics.) But if the majority firmly supports such measures -- which might well happen, and has indeed happened historically -- I don't see how they would be inherently non-democratic.


----------



## germinal

cuchuflete said:


> Hi Germinal,
> I suspect we agree more than you may have thought. If you refer to a democratic regime that falls into totalitarian hands, of course many people will be intimidated into silence. Others will be
> taken into 'custody', and interrogated, and sometimes tortured and killed. Trials become optional.
> Others will collaborate.
> 
> Guantánamo is a painful example of the failings of democracy. I fear that the absence of due process of law, or the application of _ex post facto_ law, are hardly the stuff of democratic ideals.


 
You are right - we do agree.  On the Guantanamo question I omitted to put `panicking` before the word government and did not intent to condone what has been done.


----------



## CrazyArcher

cuchuflete said:


> Do your own research.  Isn't a single individual tortured by a competent technocrat enough to get your attention?
> 
> I retract my earlier statements.  I do wish you life under one of those you seem to so admire.
> Why don't you go to Buenos Aires and meet some of the grandmothers still asking what happened to their family members.  They have equivalents in Chile.



My own research is 2279 people, including those who died at the initial coup, from both sides. This figure hasn't been put under question even by the Mothers' Commitee or the Union Of Victims. 1261 people died in the first 3 months, when the civil war was still going on and the remaining socialists fought the new regime. Do you have pity for socialists? I was born in USSR and I've seen what it does to a country, so I don't. 
All the political parties were abolished, both left and right. Everything one was to do is to keep low profile and not try to gather political meetings, and no one would touch him. Just go to work, raise your kids, and live your life. It's not hard, is it? 
You can't put an equation mark between Argentina and Chile. I agree, in Argentina it was a bunch of blood-crazed psychopaths. Chilean army hasn't ever lost a battle, let alone war - a feat that no blood-crazed psychopath can accomplish. It has also stayed out of politics, and you can't say that Pinochet wasn't a representing example of a Chilean officer. Now think how dire the situation in the country must be in order to make the apolitical army think about a coup.
I don't _admire_ Pinichet, but I doubt that I, or any other person I know, would succeed better than him in country management.


----------



## cuchuflete

You seem to hold the thoroughly anti-democratic belief that torture and murder of socialists is agreeable.
I have more pity than contempt for such a sick viewpoint.  Why don't you put it on offer to the socialists in your current country of residence?


----------



## CrazyArcher

I have never said that torture is agreeable. I think it's utterly needless. Besides, you make the word "anti-democratic" sound as if it's something wrong. Also, I have never stated that dictatorship is good for any country. I believe that in case of Chile it was the lesser evil - I prefer a thousand die instead of the whole country literally starving, and it's not that those who were killed were innocent. And yes, IMO being socialist like Allende is a crime (Further reading:  _"Capitalism and Freedom", Milton Friedman, 1962_). If Pinochet was all that evil, why would he conduct a voting whether he should remain the president? He could very well remain in power for the rest of his life, or at least place a puppet ruler instead of him. 

About socialists in my country of residence: I hate them too. Most of the economic and social problems it experiences now are due to the socialistic point of view of the "forefathers". I think that a lot of people currently in the parliament/government deserve to be imprisoned, at least. Democracy led to Israel to nothing but uncovered extortion, corruption, and instability. I want to get out of that zoo as fast as I can. It's not that I'm a weirdo - I asked a number of people I know, most of whom are for from politics, about an idea of a revolt in the country, and everyone supported the idea, or at least had nothing against it.


----------



## cuchuflete

There must be a nice benevolent dictatorship somewhere just waiting, spittle dripping down its chin, for the acolyte. Those tortured and murdered by the noble Augusto Pinochet were, he tells us, not "innocent".  I wonder what they were not innocent of? Thinking thoughts and saying things contrary to the murderous goons perhaps?

What were they charged with? Support of a freely elected government?  How were their speedy trials conducted? At the point of a rifle?  

So one can sit in a democratic nation, and wallow in hatred of some of its citizens.  How idyllic.  How benevolent. "...deserve to be imprisoned, at least."  At least?  Why not say what you really feel?  Tell us that they should be killed.  Or maybe that they should follow your preferred methods...and kill their opposition?
After the fact, it's not too difficult to declare the dead not 'innocent'.


----------



## CrazyArcher

It would be wonderful if the only thing socialists did was expressing their viewpoints. They, however, started experimenting with the economy. For instance, theoretically, only large enterprises were subject to nationalization, but chaotic captures of small factories and even workshops weren’t prevented. They were presented as “national privatization” and were accompanied with logical paradoxes in the style of Mao, Ho Chi Min, and Fidel, and chants that deficit and black market were caused by "counter-revolutionary actions of the country's enemies". Doesn't resemble you someone? I'll give you a hint: he was a Georgian with big moustache. More that a *million* of Chileans were on a strike just before the coup started. The parliament -a democratic institution, by the way - passed a resolution outlawing Allende, and that happened a few weeks *before* the revolt.
What socialists did was bringing the country on the edge of a catastrophe. I think it's a crime.

All that nice criminal legislation with attorneys and prosecutors works in quiet environment. In case where the citizens physically have nothing to eat, you don't have time for that, you have to get the country stable as fast as possible.

PS: BTW. it would greatly help the discussion if you stop putting words I haven't said in my mouth. I've never said that dictatorship is absolutely the best thing, and that I want all the politicians in my country killed. Making them work hard for minimal wage and trying to get by with the money they earn would be not a bad punishment.


----------



## ernest_

CrazyArcher said:


> I don't _admire_ Pinichet, but I doubt that I, or any other person I know, would succeed better than him in country management.



I don't know whether he was a good country manager, but he did manage quite well to make a living out of it.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> Hi Germinal,
> I suspect we agree more than you may have thought. If you refer to a democratic regime that falls into totalitarian hands, of course many people will be intimidated into silence. Others will be
> taken into 'custody', and interrogated, and sometimes tortured and killed. Trials become optional.
> Others will collaborate.
> 
> Guantánamo is a painful example of the failings of democracy. I fear that the absence of due process of law, or the application of _ex post facto_ law, are hardly the stuff of democratic ideals.


 
I feel your pain. I can hardly sleep at night for fear of being rounded up and taken there. Oh! The agony.


----------



## Lombard Beige

ernest_ said:


> I don't know whether he was a good country manager, but he did manage quite well to make a living out of it.



Hear! Hear! As they used to say at Westminster ...

Going back to the original question: Is democracy overrated? I saw by chance, I think in Switzerland, a series of TV interviews of people from East Germany precisely on this subject. 

Well, listening to these East Germans is a bit like participating in a forum. You hear a lot of opinions and then have to draw your own conclusions. Also, this was a group of particularly well-informed people, as they have lived under both systems and therefore can judge from direct personal experience.

I came to the following conclusions. All the interviewees judged the political side,  the democratic process of United Germany as better than that of the DDR. (They all pointed out the paradoxical Orwellian nature of the official name of East Germany, i.e. the German DEMOCRATIC Republic, DDR.) The DDR system was judged to be bureaucratic and AT BEST technocratic.

However, the interviews also pointed out two things:

1) Although the Western system is better, certain aspects of the Eastern system are remembered with nostalgia. For example, a factory worker said: "Yes, our working conditions were worse. There was pollution, noise, etc., but there was also a sense of solidarity, among the rank and file, not the Party bureaucrats, that we have now lost". I think it is fair to say that they were talking about the economic system, i.e. capitalism, associated with Western democracy rather than, as already mentioned, the purely political process, free speech, rule of law, etc.

2) They also said that what they really envied was West Germany as it was at the time of the Cold War, rather than present-day United Germany, because with the end of the Cold War, Germany has become more capitalist, more "Amerikan", etc. I think this goes back to the European social welfare issue (what some Americans call "socialism"). In my personal experience, this view is shared by many West Europeans in general in relation to their own countries, cf. Maxiogees comments on health care in Ireland.

Summing up, the interviewees seemed to be saying: democracy as applied in present-day Germany beats the old DDR system 3 to 1, but there is this residual 1 to be considered, i.e. possibly United Germany colud still learn some things, albeit minor ones, from the old DDR.

Lastly, many curious memories were mentioned, such as the old Trabant car, which had no fuel indicator. You used a dipstick! Also, apparently, there are shops specializing in old East German products, and many people use them, including those who are otherwise completely opposed to the  everything the DDR ever stood for.

Auf Wiedersehen

regards


----------



## Athaulf

Lombard Beige said:


> Summing up, the interviewees seemed to be saying: democracy as applied in present-day Germany beats the old DDR system 3 to 1, but there is this residual 1 to be considered, i.e. possibly United Germany colud still learn some things, albeit minor ones, from the old DDR.
> 
> Lastly, many curious memories were mentioned, such as the old Trabant car, which had no fuel indicator. You used a dipstick! Also, apparently, there are shops specializing in old East German products, and many people use them, including those who are otherwise completely opposed to the  everything the DDR ever stood for.



I think this last part of your post is a good indication of what's really going on.  People usually have the tendency to remember the past as much nicer than they actually perceived it at the time. It's a very universal human trait.  Somehow, the human memory tends to forget the ugly parts of life faster than the pretty ones; the distant past often seems somehow innocent, careless, lacking the oppressive seriousness and harshness of the present situation. In many cases, even the memories of things that were perceived as problematic or irritating morph into their opposite and become parts of an idyllic overall picture. 

Thus, I don't think that any objective conclusions can be drawn from asking people's opinions on how fondly they remember the past. I actually consider it as an indication of very rational thinking by these interviewees that they didn't present an even more favorable view of the past.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Athaulf said:


> ...I actually consider it as an indication of very rational thinking by these interviewees that they didn't present an even more favorable view of the past.



They are of course German and North German at that! And, as I said, many of their criticisms of present Western European democracy/capitalism seem to be shared by many local people, and not just on the Left. A good example was former Pope John Paul II, who I think nobody could accuse of being a communist, as much of the merit for the fall of communism goes to him, but as a politician more than as a religious leader.

Also, talking of nostalgia, there is the famous YUstalgia that is shared by ALL the ex-Yugoslavs I know, my neighbours (Bosnian Croatians), my dentist (Serbian) and his wife (Dalmatian Croatian, to the extent that she has a "Venetian" grandfather, so Dalmatian in the fullest Slav-Latin sense). But none of these people say that the old Yugoslavia was a good social system. They all say that T*t* created an EFFECTIVE political framework for keeping together highly divergent populations. 

I was also personally involved in the early nineties in an initiative promoted by the Slovene government to avoid war by preserving some elements of the old system, while at the same time introducing democracy and capitalism. The initiative did not work !!! (The comment a Slovene diplomat made at the time was: "Well, they  (guess who?) now have what they want [stockpiles of weapons and aircraft]  and we have what we want [a couple of martyrs - I'm talking about Slovenia] to name our streets and squares and to justify our independence]. 

Zdravo


----------



## Athaulf

Lombard Beige said:


> Also, talking of nostalgia, there is the famous YUstalgia that is shared by ALL the ex-Yugoslavs I know, my neighbours (Bosnian Croatians), my dentist (Serbian) and his wife (Dalmatian Croatian, to the extent that she has a "Venetian" grandfather, so Dalmatian in the fullest Slav-Latin sense). But none of these people say that the old Yugoslavia was a good social system. They all say that T*t* created an EFFECTIVE political framework for keeping together highly divergent populations.



Well, I wouldn't call this framework "effective," considering that only a few years after his death, it fell apart and created a bloody disaster in the process. Also, I wouldn't describe the populations you're talking about as "highly divergent" in any significant way. But to get back on topic, the concrete examples of nostalgia for ex-Yugoslavia that I normally see also show the same familiar pattern of distorted memories that I described above. 

When people observe the problems and issues of today, they seem vast, serious, and difficult, whereas they tend to remember those from many years ago as mild and insignificant in comparison. Nowadays, 11 years after the war, when life has already been back to normal for a while (at least in Croatia), the problems of today about which people are complaining are certainly very real -- but people tend to forget that, say, 25 years ago, they were just about equally distressed and frustrated by very similar issues. Back then, they also perceived the then-existing system as hopelessly rotten and corrupted even more than they perceive the present one as such nowadays. But human memory tends to paint an idyllic picture of the past, in which there is no harshness and seriousness of the present life, and people somehow just seem to have been much nicer. Add to it the fact that middle-aged people tend to have especially fond memories of their teens and twenties -- when most people really have the best times of their lives, without much regard for the other circumstances -- and voila!

To emphasize the relevance of all this for the present discussion -- overall, I believe that most of the present nostalgia for the past authoritarian/totalitarian systems in Eastern Europe has its roots in such emotional romanticization of the past, rather than any sort of objective comparison of the former system with the present one. The case of former Yugoslavia is somewhat different, because the breakdown of its system was followed by a bloody war, and in some of its former parts, the present regimes could still hardly be described as liberal democratic, but I still think that the present-day Croatia can be viewed as similar to the rest of Eastern Europe in this regard.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Athaulf said:


> Well, I wouldn't call this framework "effective," considering that only a few years after his death, it fell apart and created a bloody disaster in the process. Also, I wouldn't describe the populations you're talking about as "highly divergent" in any significant way. ...



You are of course right, as you know the facts better than me. 

I think what my contacts meant is that the YU system was "effective" while Tito was alive. As you say, it didn't and possibly couldn't survive him. 

By "highly divergent", I meant the extremes, for example Slovenia and Macedonia. The Slovenes I mentioned talked about "disticating ourselves from a Balkan trap" and they thought of themselves as Central European Slavs, more akin to the former Austro-Hungarian area, which of course includes Croatia, but also the Czechs and Slovaks, than to the  Orthodox and Muslim parts of ex-YU. 

regards


----------

