BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Head Shop >

What is democracy anyway?

  
 
sleazenation
21:55 / 17.12.06

A recurring argument used to justify the war in Iraq was democracy promotion.

For the purposes of this thread, I’m not interested in the rights and wrongs of democracy promotion. What I do want you all to talk about is democracy – what exactly is the thing that is being talked about when we mention that word. I ask because it seems to be a very diverse thing.

Democracy is not a one size fits all proposition. Democracy as it works in the UK (which you could argue is not completely democratic on the grounds that certain powers, the Royal Prerogative, are, theoretically at least, reserved exclusively for the monarch) is a very different beast as to the way in which it works in, say, the US (which you could argue is not fully representative – electors in the electoral college are not prevented from voting for whomever they chose regardless of whatever pledges they have made to represent the votes of the people, apparently such electors are termed faithless electors).

Both the US and the UK practice a form of representative democracy, but this is significantly less democratic than direct democracy, where ALL major policy decisions are given over to a mandate from the masses. Of course the large the electorate, the more difficult it is to manage a direct democracy, however a form of direct democracy is apparently practised in certain cantons in the Swiss Confederation.

And then there are questions about how democratic a country needs to be to satisfy minimum requirements. Russia is notionally a democracy, but the extent to which its elections are fully free and fair are open to question, and the tactics it employs against dissidents, the press and protesting members of the public are not particularly consistent with a fully open free and democratic state.

Israel has a form of proportional representation that is particularly favourable to minor parties and ill-suited to producing stable governments able to serve out a full term, (only one of the last 8 Knesset assemblies completed its full term).

Pakistan is sometimes proclaimed as a democracy, but its leader came to power in a military coup and he has rewritten the law to the disadvantage of many of his political opponents.

While no-one would go as far as to proclaim Iran as a shining beacon of democracy, the president is elected in a vaguely democratic fashion, albeit that this role is subordinate to that of the (unelected) Supreme Leader and that the right to stand in elections is fiercely policed.

So, we get to the heart of the question. What makes a democracy worthy of the name? What are its hallmarks and key features? Is there an ideal form? And, if we accept that democracy promotion is a good idea, what sort of system should we be promoting and exporting?
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:45 / 18.12.06
Good question. I've come across liberal educators who regard democracy (in the sense of ever-increasing participation in public decision making) as the basic purpose of education: see for instance this article 'democratic educators'

from which (quoting Ryan in ref to Dewey):

"...not just as a political system in which governments elected by majority vote made such decisions as they could, but a society permeated by a certain kind of character, by mutual regard of all citizens for all other citizens, and by an ambition to make society both a greater unity and one that reflected the full diversity of its members’ talents and aptitudes."

Other pages on that site develop the theme such as a essay on bell hooks as an educator and R.H. Tawney's essay 'an experiment in democratic education'.

If I understand democracy as the aim of mass participation in public decisions and literacy (as the foundation for developing critical thinking) as the method for developing it, I can see democracy as something worth promoting.
 
 
eib
13:48 / 18.12.06
to simplify this - its quite easy isnt it? Democracy involves 1 man or 1 woman and 1 vote to form a polity who will rule as the will of the people dictates. Without 1 person 1 vote - its not democracy.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:10 / 18.12.06
So, eib, I notice you live in London. Would you describe the UK as a democracy? If so, for how long has it been a democracy?
 
 
symbiosis
15:56 / 21.12.06
If a despotic ruler was telepathic, and could read the minds of the citizens of his/her state, and fulfilled their every desire(without telepathically controlling them), couldn't that also be a democracy?

It seems to me that it isn't so much a form of voting and organization, but a empirical measurement of desire.

And it goes the other way too. Consider America, where we vote all the time but the will of the people is near totally subverted.

So here is symbiosis's primary democracy definition:

Democracy is the fulfillment of a nation's true desires, by whichever means.

(note: here a nation can be any durable group of people, of whatever size)

And symbiosis's democratic corrollary:

You can only determine the level of democracy existant in a nation by asking the people who have the least power in the system if their desires are fulfilled, the people with power will always be able to fake it.

I think this answers the thread summary succinctly. Great topic, quite apt.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:13 / 22.12.06
Hmm - you've already confused "the people" with "the nation", though. It may be the desire of the people to give everybody a wide-screen TV, in the sense that everybody wants a wide-screen TV, but that might well not be fulfilling the true desires of the nation - just of the constituents of the nation. The next level there is to consider that a democratic system may want to live longer than the consituent citizens of the nation in which it operates, and so the interest of the nation may not be the same as the desire of the people currently living in that nation.

That's before we get onto practicalities. The major problem with your corollary, symbiosis, is that if everybody's desires are fulfilled, logically there are no people in a powerless position, because everybody is getting as much power as they want. Ergo, only something that has already failed by your measurement of democracy can be tested for its success as a democracy...
 
 
Gendudehashadenough
03:48 / 25.12.06
"Democracy" has it's roots in ancient Greece. It is generally accepted that the Greeks practiced "direct democracy", in which citzens (numerous qualifications go into deciding what qualifies one to be a "citizen") had the right to participate in an Assembly which would in turn influence/institute policies. This is distinguished from "representative democracy" such as the democracy used in the United Kindom and United States, in which citizens elect representatives to vote on proposed legislation/policies/etc. This is a rough outline only intended to point out the difference between "rep" democracy and "direct" democracy.

(AAaaand it appears that just got posted, damn multiple Return keys)

Anyway, Wikipedia says:

Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):

1. A demos—a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure—must exist. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the adult portion of the nation, and adult citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
2. A territory must be present, where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic by themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
3. A decision-making procedure exists, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.
4. The procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests.
5. The procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
6. In the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result.

Taking a compartive government class a few years ago basically taught the above bullet-points as things which contribute to a democracy. They encompass, I think, the primary functions and interactions of a democracy. A demos exists, which lives in a sovereign territory and who votes for various policies/representatives/laws which are deemed beforehand to be legitimate representations of the demos' collective desires.

I think that equality is certainly a hallmark of democracy that gets overlooked, especially when talk of majoritarianism segregates the demos into those who have their will reflected within the government and those for whome it isn't. Yes,%51 can cause %49 to go to the roller rink every Sunday. When the legislation, however, brings up issues of inherent (in)equality the procedures used to determine the outcome become suspect as long as they are founded on a set of exclusionary principles.

I completely agree with the one (wo)man one vote stance, but only in the sense that every elligible citizen has the right to redress the government, or to make their opinions and desires known. Whether or not the government should facilitate or require this, and the extent to which the citizen is responsible for hir own voice being heard is up for discussion.

SN: That's a really interesting set of links. I have heard several places that one mainstay of democracy, at least observed in modern society, is that of education and the necessity for an informed and functionally literate consituency. But, I'd argue that it is difficult to seperate an educated citizendry from the procecdures which were used to explain the procecdures used in voting/legislation/participation in general, to said citizendry. I happen to think that education's where it's at when it comes to democracy. Again, GREAT LINKS.

I do find it funny that while being taught that, as Americans, we live in an essentially deliberative democracy we are taught this discursive method through lecture and busy work, totally removed from everything ressembling (sp?) a democracy.

And, if we accept that democracy promotion is a good idea, what sort of system should we be promoting and exporting?
A democracy that takes into account muti-culturalism.
 
 
sdv (non-human)
10:51 / 25.12.06
Alien

It may be generally accepted that greece was a direct democracy but this was in actuality all to obviously wrong, primarily but not solely because the definition of a 'citizen' was such a small subset of the humans who lived there. What is clear that antiquity's notion of freedom and the ideal city, that of 'direct democracy' has some horrible implications. It is the ideal of the mass media, social sciences, anarchists, the police and bureauracy... So horrible that if you've ever lived in a small community you'll want to avoid forever, for it's an ideal requires that you inform, clarify, expose, report, charge, snitch and snoop, enslaved in point of fact to being a citizen and democracy (horrible). "Freedom begins with the ignorance I have and wish to preserve of the activities and thoughts of muy neighbours and with the rtelative indifference that I hope they have for mine..." (serres)

The way we live may make us nostalgic for the model of those lost democracies in the ancient past, but to live their required continuous and total information and constructed every citizen the slave of every other citizen. They didn't have police in ancient greece because everybody monitored everybody else the whole time... I rather think that the 'citizen' who has been the model for the 'good citizen' upto and including the US, French and soviet revolutions, would to us appear like an irritating informer always telling everyone else what is good behaviour and ruthlessly condemning those who don't fit...We know longer do this because we employ the police and politicians to do this. Where they exist and behave reasonably well we are free to do more interesting things (like write this note) If they didn't exist and every 'citizen' had to carry out these tasks well....

Better by far to have the politician and the police these public and known personas, populated usually by vaguely psychotic idiots, than the all pervading eyes and ears of those who surround you and who have accepted the citizenship contract and WILL act according to the citizenship rules... Direct democracy is horrible because it forces those engaged in it to judge and condemn...Just think of the USA - (which is the closest modern state to ancient greece) - the horrifying sight of 'the flag' people 'pledging allegiance to the union'... Our liberty is defined against this not for it...

Very rough thoughts these perhaps someone can help clarify them.

laughs happy xmas
 
 
alas
15:16 / 01.01.07
Aliens said: I do find it funny that while being taught that, as Americans, we live in an essentially deliberative democracy we are taught this discursive method through lecture and busy work, totally removed from everything resembling a democracy.

I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, you're right; this is pretty much exactly the point of pedagogical work like hooks and others; their work is based on Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. What you're describing as "lecture and busy work" Freire would term a pedagogy based on "the banking concept" of educaction: where knowledge is like money banked in a single site (the teacher) and students have to get knowledge from the teacher. He sees it as an instrument of oppression.

On the other hand, I think it's pretty easy to romanticize their work into "students should just learn from each other and it should be fun." I would would say that really absorbing and listening to a good lecture can be a very liberating, very educating thing. I've been studying the Lakota culture recently; many North American Indian cultures were remarkably democratic and deeply respectful of individuals, and the education system was arguably much more complex and individualized than anything we've devised in the West yet rooted in a deep respect for others. (I was musing on the cheapness of human relations in empire-based cultures like ours in the Books forum this morning, which allows us to basically blow-off other people's perspectives and viewpoints). By contrast, in Lakota Sioux culture, if a council were called each speaker's words would be followed by a long period of silence, say a half hour, in order to give it proper respect and to give them a chance to amend or add to what they had said in their first speech.

I could make a similar argument about many things that students might be tempted to write off as "busy work." I'm a little skeptical, because there's such a culture of narcissism in the US bred by the biggest educator of all, the advertising industry, which has a much more profoundly pacifying impact on citizens than even the mediocre US education system, in my opinion. Your most inspiring teacher still will probably not compete with the 3,000 ads per day the average US citizen is exposed to. The only thing that matters is what YOU, dear you and you alone, want! The way to happiness is through purchasing a product. If you have to struggle, compromise, there must be something wrong, and besides, it's boring. If any one, or anything makes a demand on you, it can't be worth doing, worth understanding.

One of its major impacts is this can be, and is, a pervasive kind of knee-jerk disdain for listening--really listening--to another human being (including by reading their words), particularly for an extended period of time, as they explore a complex idea or concept. I'm not sure we can have a genuine democracy without that skill, and I'm pretty sure we are losing it both in our oral and print-based culture.
 
 
Saturn's nod
06:23 / 02.02.07
I like what you've written, alas. I think I agree with you about the power of listening. It can be hard work, but I pin a lot of hope to its power to improve the sustainability of human society, if we can listen to ourselves and each other and the other beings with us on earth. I made a note about dialogue in this thread about revolution. I want the best of the adversarial parliamentary process for testing the soundness of ideas put together with the best collaborative processes for listening. I have a bit of hope to offer for the persistence of listening from its key place in Quaker culture.

In the light of what you've written about Lakota process, let me tell you a bit about my understanding of Quaker decision-making. I wonder how much they have in common in historical origin - I don't know where in the Americas the Lakota nation are? I've heard accounts of Quakers' interactions with first nations people in the Americas pretty soon after European invasions started in large numbers though that might just be the fairy story. It would be interesting if the European Quaker processes could be shown to have been influenced by what the travelling preachers learned in the Americas or vice versa.

Anyway as I understand Quaker decision making it is based on the same open format of worship as normal meetings for worship. We sit in concentric circles and settle into outward quietness, focusing our attention on what we understand as holy. The idea is that someone speaks ('ministers') when they feel that God calls them to. There are various conventions about what that's understood to be like, of course.

Something's 'put before the meeting' from the agenda in a 'meeting for worship for business' (or comes from what's on someone's mind if it's open worship). Each vocal contribution is surrounded by silence - sometimes much less than half an hour! But a few minutes is common. It's called meeting for worship for business because it's understood that we worship God - put first what is sacred - by listening to that precious divine power in our decision-making. We surround each speech with silence in order to listen better.

I wonder if this comes from a common situation of heavy investment in relations with each other that you suggest with the Lakota nation: Quakers for centuries were an endogamous sect stigmatized by their strange appearance - bonnets, hats etc so there wasn't anywhere to go except to leave the sect.

In a meeting for worship for businesss, after some time the person who's offered to serve the meeting as clerk will read out something they think sums up where the meeting understands the sense of God to be on that matter. Further vocal contributions from the meeting then may adjust that record (the minute) until all present feel in unity about what has been understood and recorded. Hard decisions do get put off from meeting to meeting sometimes until it's felt there can be unity - sometimes with lots of listening and writing between various people outside the meeting room or until events have moved on.

It's difficult for anything radical to be done through the proper meeting processes of complete unity and divine-led consensus and it must be admitted that the good reputation of Quakers for action on important issues like slavery, women's rights and so on has historically been carried out by people who are individually convinced they are right acting and dragging the collective along until they were embarrassed to delay any longer. So the discipline is not perfect nor perhaps should it be in that light!

Liberal Friends (Friends=Members of the religious society of Friends=Quakers) I think are really good at one part of the necessary discipline: the bit about being willing not to know what is right, and open to a fresh insight swooping in to change everyone's mind. Culturally I got a lot of teaching about listening skills: the accounts were often about how creative listening is as an active skill. I understand that in lending my loving attention I may enable someone to speak from their heart in a new way that helps us all see more clearly, and I aim to let go of all my previous thoughts on whatever matter in order to fully be able to listen to them and understand where their words come from. There's a clear link made explicitly between ends and means - we follow an orderly process in God because that's what we want: violence is rejected because it is usually seen as inevitably leading to more violence.

I think the more conservative streams of Friends are a bit better at the "testing" part: christians are instructed in scriptural letters to test the spirits that come to us. Ideas or thoughts appearing in our midst can be understood as spirits: not all of them are the same holy spirit of God. We can ask whether engagement with the idea leads to liberation and patience and compassion and trust and other evidence of the sacred power at work. Friends understand that the divine light may be painful in revealing our shortcomings to us but that essentially it shows us the way to being liberating to be all we can be.
 
 
Saturn's nod
08:04 / 02.02.07
It's difficult for anything radical to be done through the proper meeting processes of complete unity and divine-led consensus and it must be admitted that the good reputation of Quakers for action on important issues like slavery, women's rights and so on has historically been carried out by people who are individually convinced they are right acting and dragging the collective along until they were embarrassed to delay any longer. So the discipline is not perfect nor perhaps should it be in that light!

I realise on re-reading that this is kind of recognized in testing whether something someone feels they have to do is agreed to be a "true leading of God" or not. I guess there's something about the person feeling that justice will not allow them to not act. It's a bit tricky to work out how that differs from someone who's blindly convinced that they and no-one else knows the answer and that they have to for instance invade start a war.

I think that the tricky discernment can start by asking the questions about how one's inner prompting to invade another country could be distinguished from one's inner prompting to do something that is generally considered godly (like learn how to do community mediation or campaign against nuclear weapons).

It takes time to find agreement in such hairy and subtle matters and I've heard that as an argument against the kinds of democratic processes I favour - that they just take too long. I guess my position with that at present is that those who are unable to wait for others will act, and that it's more important to continue working towards unity in collective processes than to cut through that in search of some end which cannot be found collectively. It's a critical issue at present with the situation about climate change - when we're dependent on collective agreement and it's so slow to build consensus, can humans act fast enough to avoid dying in our own wastes?

I think Quakers tend to be the kind of optimistic types who are prepared to put their eggs into the basket of acting with loving attention in all cases, but it's hard to sustain when faster action for example may save species crucial to ecosystem function. I've just been at a consultation about our Quaker response to Climate change and I feel there was a lot of emotional energy going towards just managing to feel contained in our pain at the state of the world and our faith in the methods of love to lead us to solution. I think the emotional skill of developing tolerance to one's own intense and conflicting impulses is crucial for democracy. (Which I keep mis-typing as demoncracy to my amusement: are {delta}{ghfrown}{mu}{omicron}{fsigma} and {delta}{alpha}{giacu}{mu}{omega}{nu} etymologically distinct, anyone?)

The tolerance of that deep conflict in the self and the search for what unifies seems to me to be the same process as the tolerance of deep conflict within the collective and the search for what is larger and unifies.
 
 
nighthawk
11:17 / 04.02.07
(Which I keep mis-typing as demoncracy to my amusement: are {delta}{ghfrown}{mu}{omicron}{fsigma} and {delta}{alpha}{giacu}{mu}{omega}{nu} etymologically distinct, anyone?)

I'm not sure I understand your transcription, but I'm fairly sure that 'demos [dhmos]' and 'daemon [daimwn]' are not etymologically related - beyond the shared delta and mu, the roots are completely different.

I think I agree with you about the power of listening. It can be hard work, but I pin a lot of hope to its power to improve the sustainability of human society, if we can listen to ourselves and each other and the other beings with us on earth.

People seem to be talking about democracy as a sort of ethos or ideology that might change the nature of society - certainly more than a formal procedure for decision making anyway. I'm wondering whether the emphasis on openess etc. might obscure fairly major divisions of interest that will affect the nature of democratic spaces/procedures and the types of activity they can instigate. I mean, it is in the interests of many people to maintain the status quo or some manageable variant of it; for others, genuine social change will require a radical transformation of the way society works, certainly more than increased openess, better listening, etc. I suppose I'm asking whether democratic decision making of the kind envisioned here actually ever effect that? Or to put it more bluntly, is it a question of accepting capitalism and trying to make it more open, democratic, and sustainable, or looking to a more radical social change? In the same vein, confrontation is not necessarily just a testing of ideas, it can also arise from an irreconcilable clash of interests. And I'm not highlighting this through some macho investment in conflict, but because I think its important to recognise that openess and listening will not get us very far with the powerful interests vested in current social relations...
 
 
Saturn's nod
12:59 / 04.02.07
Thanks for your opinion about the greek words: that's what I thought but I have only the tiniest knowledge about how greek words work.

People seem to be talking about democracy as a sort of ethos or ideology that might change the nature of society - certainly more than a formal procedure for decision making anyway.

Yes, that's the way I understand it at the moment. I see democracy as the result of education for critical consciousness.

I'm wondering whether the emphasis on openess etc. might obscure fairly major divisions of interest that will affect the nature of democratic spaces/procedures and the types of activity they can instigate.

Could you say some more about this? My interest and enthusiasm at the moment is kind of at the tools level of human interation. It's more about ways to orient in local systems and to navigate through the social spaces towards negotiated collective solutions. I don't think I have an overarching analysis. I have a reliance on sets of tools - literacy, numeracy, listening - which I think facilitate movement from here into the adjacent possible in the direction of increasing participation and intelligence.

How does that obscure interests? I guess I have thought of it as rather making space to reveal and respect the interests of each, because that's necessary in order to find a win-win solution. I think perhaps only compassionate attempts to understand how it really is for people can unpick nets of shame that drive people into deception.

I know people have different energy levels and different levels of interest in collective process. I think if people are unable to participate but able to make their presence felt, they attract spokespersons: it's necessary for us collectively to learn what proper respect and suspicion is due towards spokepeople (<- Latour, Politics of nature).

I mean, it is in the interests of many people to maintain the status quo or some manageable variant of it; for others, genuine social change will require a radical transformation of the way society works, certainly more than increased openess, better listening, etc.

Yes: I think our comfortable life in the developed world is one of the things hampering progress towards sustainable human existence. I know I have a huge investment in the way things are because in global terms I'm enjoying the hoard from the exploitation of most of the planet.

But I know that social change campaigns have moved people beyond the level of their social interest - the North Atlantic trade in and economic dependence on the forced labour of enslaved humans was dismantled despite arguments that it was propping up the entire economy and despite it being convenient for those who held others in subjection. I believe that occurred mostly by change of consciousness: when sufficient powerful interests had been converted, it became increasingly difficult for those who wanted to keep slaves to continue. It is taking a long time to establish a just end to slavery but I think it's clear we've moved along way along the road from the situation only a few hundred years ago.

I guess increased listening and speaking, critical thinking and participation in social affairs seems to me to be a local vector in the direction of the necessary change and as such it is where both radical change and whatever can adjust capitalism can begin. I believe that wider deeper consultation along with good critical evaluation produces a better estimate.

I suppose I'm asking whether democratic decision making of the kind envisioned here actually ever effect that? Or to put it more bluntly, is it a question of accepting capitalism and trying to make it more open, democratic, and sustainable, or looking to a more radical social change?

I don't share this view of opposition between adjustment of capitalism and radical social change movement. I'm interested in how people make decisions. I've seen examples of people learning to change the way they make decisions. I have confidence at the moment in the possibility of us humans listening to each other and finding ways we can all share a small planet. I don't know what that will look like and I'm not confident that its large-scale political architecture can be described in advance of it occurring. But I think I know some things about how it's going to have to work: the local rules stuff about inclusion, thinking skills, listening skills, the ability to find a step forward that we can make together and make it.

In the same vein, confrontation is not necessarily just a testing of ideas, it can also arise from an irreconcilable clash of interests. And I'm not highlighting this through some macho investment in conflict, but because I think its important to recognise that openess and listening will not get us very far with the powerful interests vested in current social relations...

I think Rob Hopkins' point about the time scale of decision making is crucial in considering this. "Building accord is hard if the horizon is only five years; vested interests block any sense of consensus. But a 20-year time scale produces far more common ground than we can imagine. All kinds of different organisations are now talking about local food, food miles, carbon lock-up and food security." (from here).

I think this question of irreconcilable clash of interests is the heart of social processes and it shapes the belief a lot of people have about what is possible.

At the moment I'm finding a great source of energy and possibility in the approach of finding something larger that we share. It's about being able to find grounding and motivation in a larger sense of self: as a fellow human being, as an inhabitant of earth, as beings subject to the same physical laws. At present the way I see it all of us humans are dependent on each other and all the other species involved in the life support systems of this planet, and I hope that ground of our being has the potential to help us find a way forward.

I'm not finding irreconcilable differences of interest in the processes I'm involved in: I'm bumping into differences of approach based on different ways of knowing and communicating and those seem very soluble in the kind of listening processes that I am attempting to learn and practice.

If democracy is a process of dialogue in decision making it seems to me naturally opposed to violent short-cuts: a hundred years after adult suffrage, land war within Europe is almost unacceptable. The revolutions in Europe over the last three hundred years have become increasingly less violent: the bloodshed involved in dismantling the Soviet Union was minimal compared to that involved in establishing Parliament in the UK or overthrowing the aristocracy of France.

The most popular pursuits of humans seem to be following the same trajectory: cat burning and bull baiting aren't as acceptable as they were and even bullying and exploitative relations between humans are starting to register socially as unacceptable pain.

I want to find out to what extent our differences can be either solved or suffered, person to person, within the largest intellectual and emotional frame of reference available. I guess I'm extrapolating from a first step of adult franchise electing national representatives towards a nested series of consultations involving any kind of person in scales from household to bioregion to planet.
 
 
Daemon est Deus Inversus
14:29 / 06.02.07
Attempts at democracy were, apart from theoretical Greek works in the 5th-century B.C., never actually attempted until the 18-th century. Democracy never acheived the status of a World experiment until after W.W. I; when the Versailles Conference for the first time recognized Nationalism, the identity of a people divorced from their rulers (as opposed to tradition) as a valid demarcation of territory. It led to the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. In a bizarre way, it became the parent of Fascism ("The Fasci di Socialisti").
 
 
cliffchuff
16:30 / 08.02.07
I would have though the systems in place in the UK & Us were in reality Plutocracies, being as only the elite can afford to achieve positions of power (excepting those puppets placed in power by the finances of others) and that the system is structured such that in order to progress to higher positions one must inevitable become compromised by the 'system'.

As for the general population having a say on all matters wouldn't we need a fair and impartial educational system with no media bias for this to actually work.

i have always felt this is why there is so much disillusionment with politics its all the same shit and very little changes very slowly.
 
 
Saturn's nod
17:25 / 08.02.07
As for the general population having a say on all matters wouldn't we need a fair and impartial educational system with no media bias for this to actually work.

I hear what you're saying about plutocracy, but I guess I'm not yet convinced it's unbreakable. I realise I have a really strong belief that tasty ideas are genuinely self-publishing.

I'm interested in how the emotional and intellectual characteristics of the ruling class can be distributed: how can everyone acquire a rock solid sense of personal worth, emotional security, confidence enough to learn and ask for whatever help is needed, and so on. I don't think the influence the super-rich have actually comes from their cash, I think some of it has to do with their self-confidence and so on - and I model those things are portable skills.

I agree as well that education is the key to democracy (if the word democracy's used in the sense of increased public participation in decision making). I agree that public education would change as part of building democracy, but I have little faith in top-down change to create that. I think people can make cultural changes within the current systems when motivation is sufficient, and I'm interested at the moment in working out what gives people political energy to make changes, which I guess is the same thing you're pointing at with your mention of "...so much disillusionment with politics its all the same shit and very little changes very slowly".

I think an informal voluntary critical education system for adults is as close as possible to those fair and impartial education system with no media bias, and I keep running into those, from this place, to study-action groups various people I know are in for climate change action, permaculture skill-sharing groups or whatever. I don't know what proportion of people want to learn but I know I love to. Could you say a bit more about what you see as missing and how you'd know it if you saw it, cliffchuff?
 
  
Add Your Reply