BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Prescribing Democracy

  
 
sleazenation
12:04 / 11.04.06
So, this is a new stab at the old topic of democracy, particularly in the light of The Coalition's attempt to enforce democracy in Iraq. One of the many problems I see when it comes to this enterprise is that democracy is something of a movable feast.

It is not a one-size fits all deal, even amongst so-called mature democracies there is a wide degree of variation in how each democracy functions. Then there are countries whose democracy is problematic in the sense that it creates the conditions that are unfavourable to stable government. Italy and Israel are two good examples here, then there are democracies are less democratic than others, I'm thinking of India and Russia here. Further down the scale we have 'democracies' such as Pakistan and Zimbabwe and countries with democratic elements such as Iran.

With such a mixed bag of democracies, I figured that it might be a good idea to start discussing what are the key hallmarks of a vibrant and fully functioning democracy are.
 
 
elene
13:25 / 11.04.06
I haven't much time right now, but ...

democracy's most obvious problem is that what's good for the majority, or in Britain's case the 35%, whose representatives get to form the government is not necessarily good for the rest of the people. A constitution and court system are supposed to prevent this from getting out of hand, by specifying those rights and duties the majority can't simply revoke. How and how well this is done is very variable. Iran is an instance of a democracy where the inalienable rights and duties of all members of society are specified in the Koran and its interpretation by the Mullahs. That's certainly not everyone's kettle of fish, but something along these lines is necessary.

A weakness of democracy is how easily someone can, by dint of wealth or power or simple charisma, manipulate the voters (and possibly the voting system).

It should also be noted that, though it's undoubtedly better to make one's own mistakes than to live with those of another, democracy certainly does not guarantee that voters will do the right thing, or even that which is in their own best interests. A single instance of democracy is not guaranteed to be better than an instance of some other system.
 
 
sleazenation
10:23 / 23.05.06
In light of Blair's recent trip to offer his backing for Iraq's new democratic government I thought I'd give this thread another push...

So, how functional and representative can this government be, particularly in light of reports of the infiltration and split political allegencies sufferred by the police and reports of ethnic factions being forced to move out of certain districts?

Is Iraq a democracy worthy of the name - is it embarking on a journy with its first tentative steps? Can all of Iraq's interest groups be bullied and cajoled into a peaceful full and freely democratic society? What would that mean anyhow?
 
 
Queer Pirate
18:42 / 23.05.06
Elene

A weakness of dictatorship is how easily someone can, by dint of wealth or power or simple military strength, bully the non-voters (and most likely the entire social system).

It should also be noted that, though it's undoubtedly better for a despot to make one's own mistakes than to live with those of would-be "voters", dictatorship certainly does not guarantee that rulers will do the right thing, or even that which is in their population's best interests. A single instance of dictatorship is not guaranteed to be better than an instance of some other system - say democracy.

Sorry Elene, I just couldn't resist that one... Please take no offence.

* * *

I think that an essential element for a vibrant democracy is the possibility for voters to systematically vote on (and potentially veto) any law made by their representatives. Delegating law-making powers only works if individual citizens have the possibility to reclaim these powers at any moment as they see fit.

Another element of a vibrant democracy also involves the voters' ability to force a bill proposed by the opposition into the next step of the legislative process, even if it was originally overturned by the party controlling the legislature.

Needless to say, I don't know of any existing "democracy" that grants voters such powers, even though these would be quite legitimate.
 
 
Slim
19:38 / 23.05.06
I think that an essential element for a vibrant democracy is the possibility for voters to systematically vote on (and potentially veto) any law made by their representatives. Delegating law-making powers only works if individual citizens have the possibility to reclaim these powers at any moment as they see fit.

I think the emphasis needs to rest on "possibility." The reason for nominating representatives is to guarantee that those making the decisions are educated and informed enough to make better decisions than those made by the general public. Maybe a vibrant democracy is one in which citizens could, but never have to, vote on specific issues because democratically-elected representatives have already made the best decision.
 
 
Shiny: Well Over Thirty
19:42 / 23.05.06
I think a key thing that’s needed for democracy to really work is a free, independent and unbiased media. Universal suffrage is a good thing indeed, but if voters do not have reasonably easy access to the necessary information in order to make an informed decision on who will represent their interests in the manner in which they wish them to be represented then it doesn’t really count for all that much.

Aside from that I’d say that a workable facility for the electorate to recall representatives at any time might well go a long way towards allowing things to function in a far better manner than the usual systems in which representatives can only be called to account every few years and are more or less free to do as they please so long as there isn’t a regularly scheduled election coming up.

Finally I think democracy would suit me far better if all of the main parties did not espouse essentially the same basic capitalist ideology, with only slight variations between them. I don’t regard voters having the chance to pick which representative of broadly the same ideology as being a terribly democratic process really.
 
 
Queer Pirate
02:18 / 24.05.06
Slim

I think the emphasis needs to rest on "possibility." The reason for nominating representatives is to guarantee that those making the decisions are educated and informed enough to make better decisions than those made by the general public. Maybe a vibrant democracy is one in which citizens could, but never have to, vote on specific issues because democratically-elected representatives have already made the best decision.

I totally agree with you on the importance of representatives. I think its unrealistic to expect the population to make informed decisions about every issue, especially since many of these issues might not interest your average Joe.

The way I see it, if 20% of the population mobilizes to vote on a law, then the total vote for the population should be weighed at 20% while the representatives vote should be weighed at 80%. On the other hand, if a hot button issue mobilizes a huge portion of the population and 75% of people vote on it, then the popular vote should be weighed at 75% and the representatives vote, only at 25%. So if more of the population chooses to vote on a law, its vote counts for more and the representatives vote counts for less. Do I make sense?

Shiny Things

I think a key thing that’s needed for democracy to really work is a free, independent and unbiased media. Universal suffrage is a good thing indeed, but if voters do not have reasonably easy access to the necessary information in order to make an informed decision on who will represent their interests in the manner in which they wish them to be represented then it doesn’t really count for all that much.

Indepedent media is a key element to a viable democracy (just as controlled media is a huge aspect of a dictatorship) and its independance hardly exists anymore, at least here in North America.

Montesquieu's argument on the separation of powers is still very much valid today, but the three-power model (with legislative, executive and judiciary powers) is no longer complete. Medias are now called the 4th power and corporations should be considered the 5th power. It is crucial that all of these 5 powers remain separate from each other. (Civil society could be considered the 6th power; however, I don't think it should be separate from the rest.) Unfortunately, corporate power tends to meddle a lot with the legislative, the executive and the media, and the huge financial ressources corporations wield give them quite an advantage when they have to deal with the judiciary.
 
 
sleazenation
08:15 / 24.05.06
I think i disagree a bit on the duties of a representative, but that might well be because of differences in how UK and US democracies work...

In the UK an MP, a member of the elected house of commons, is elected to represent a specific constituency and remains in contact with that constituency, through his office and (weekly?) constituency surguries where voters go and meet with their MP to raise issues with him that they find particularly important.

Therefore, the process of consultation between representative and voter is an ongoing one, and one that enables greater levels of involvement to those members of the public who are sufficiently motivated. Constituency surguries work over and above writing/faxing/emailing your MP.

How does this compare to the way US voters interact with their congress person? And how does an elected senate work as part of a representative democracy?

In the UK, the upper house is unelected and currently filled with a mixture of people appointed by various governments, the descendants of people appointed by various governments, some senior judges and about 22 Anglican bishops...

I've got to say I kind of like this unelected set up as it can more effectively act as a break on the excesses of the elected house while still, thanks to the Parliment Act, remaining subordinate to it.

In the UK the judiciary and the established church are currently part of the legislature, but they are included in such a way as to prevent them from having an overwhelming voice...
 
 
elene
08:40 / 24.05.06
No offence taken, Queer Pirate, but unfortunately I'm going to be away for a few days and I can't take part in this discussion.

Tight control of media and the military isn't a weakness in a dictatorship though, it does nothing to make the dictatorship less dictatorial, whereas it does make a democracy less democratic. Also, one would like to think that sampling a large group of people for their opinion would help decide what's in their best interest, because that's what they'd choose, but that's not the case. It only tells us what they think is in their best interests, and that's largely an illusion driven by social mores/prejudice, common sense, gossip and the media. Tax cuts.

Have fun, as far as I know it's raining, as usual, in Ireland.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:13 / 24.05.06
(weekly?)

(It should be every Friday but possibly only when parliament's in session?)
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:40 / 24.05.06
To my mind the most important thing for a democracy is at least one credible opposition. This is why I always feel a little uncomfortable mocking the Tories' ongoing voyage round the S-bend. I mean, I'd cut my own nutsack off before I'd want them in power, but at the moment (yes, even with his government in such a shambles) Mr Tony can basically say "yeah, you and whose army?" to dissenters. The purpose of a functioning Tory party would not lie in their own ideas or policies, but in the fact that Mr Tony would constantly have to justify and explain his own. Which at the moment he doesn't.
 
 
david101
14:51 / 26.05.06
Like, Stoatally, dude

To my mind the most important thing for a democracy is at least one credible opposition.

Aye. One-party democracies are just another byword for dictatorships. Couple that with UK/Westminster style separation of powers and there can literally be no difference between the two modes of governance. Some Commonwealth countries are victims of this combination: Singapore, Malaysia, and South Africa to an extent.

Perhaps another element in a good democracy is the use of proportional representation, rather than a first-past-the-post system. Both have their pros and cons, but proportional representation is most effective in local elections where it holds more relevance to the citizens it directly administrates.
 
 
sleazenation
15:23 / 26.05.06
Of course, the flip side of multiparty politics are perpetual coalitions that hand disproportionate power to a minority.

examples here include Israel, Italy and, to a lesser extent, Germany. The recent elections in Israel are particularly relevant on this point. The two largest parties in parliment are largely secular and have joined each other in a coalition government, unfortunately they still don't have a working majority beween them. Thus they had to seek out a further coalition partner in the form of one of the small orthadox religious parties. Thus a religious minority is effectively able to dominate a largely secular government...
 
 
Supaglue
16:55 / 26.05.06
And multiparty governments tend traditionally to not be as strong in terms of policy and actually getting things done as a single party might - the squabbles of ruling parties in Italian politics show that.
 
  
Add Your Reply