Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Democracy! who's gonna define
iftikhar
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 24 (76436)
01-03-2004 10:19 PM


Hello Dears!
I am bit confused about the actual definition of democracy?
what can be the most democratic act?
your incisive comments needed.
God Bless
bye
iftikhar

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 01-05-2004 4:33 PM iftikhar has not replied
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 01-07-2004 7:32 AM iftikhar has not replied
 Message 4 by Abshalom, posted 01-07-2004 12:07 PM iftikhar has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 24 (76683)
01-05-2004 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iftikhar
01-03-2004 10:19 PM


Breaking things down to the latin roots, demos=people and cracy=rule. So, it is a government run by the people. A theocracy, for example, is ruled by theology, usually a government ruled by a church.
The "most democratic act" in today's democracies is voting, but I'm sure other people can find examples of other democratic acts (maybe popular overthrow of an autocratic regime?). In America, the "most democratic act" seems to be complaining but never voting. I like Australia's voting law, everyone must show up at the polls by law or face the consequences. You still don't have to vote, but you do have to register at the polls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iftikhar, posted 01-03-2004 10:19 PM iftikhar has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 24 (76964)
01-07-2004 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iftikhar
01-03-2004 10:19 PM


There's only one democratic act -- debating until a concensus
is reached.
There aren't any democracies on this planet though (or at
least none that I know of).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iftikhar, posted 01-03-2004 10:19 PM iftikhar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by truthlover, posted 01-07-2004 5:34 PM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 24 (76980)
01-07-2004 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iftikhar
01-03-2004 10:19 PM


While voting may rank with many as the "most democratic act," we must consider a few realities.
Are all the people affected by government policies eligible to vote? Does a democracy exist when certain segments within the society are not eligible to vote?
Are all the people eligible to vote registered to vote? Does a democracy exist when certain political elements are able to prevent or dissuade certain segments within a society from registering to vote?
Do all the people registered to vote actually go and cast a ballot? Does a democracy exist when certain political elements are able to discourage, dissuade, or prevent certain segments within a society from casting a ballot either by force or by propaganda?
Are all the ballots cast by voters counted correctly and the results of all elections certified to reflect the exact count of votes as cast by the voters. Do I need to go into this aspect of "democracy?"
Is the winner of an election determined by the popular vote or by some other archaic method such as an electoral college? Does a democracy exist when one candidate can amass the greater number of popular votes while another candidate is declared the winner by an electoral college, chamber of legislature, or supreme court?
Does a democracy exist where an elected official cannot be recalled mid-term for a violation of a sworn duty? How about a violation of a campaign promise? (Just some off-the-wall thoughts here folks.)
I agree that voting is a premier component of a democracy; however, some would have you consider other essential components, including but not necessarily limited to:
1) Uncensored Speech, or speech reasonably limited only to protect others against a threat of immediate loss of life, limb, or property.
2) Unbridled Practice of Personal Belief, or practice of belief reasonably limited only to protect others from immediate loss of life, limb, or property. This includes nonviolent civil disobedience.
3) Vociferous Cynicism, Iconoclasm, and Heretical Outbursts of Challenge. Do I need to go into this category in detail? I think not.
Peace, y'all; and may we meet one day in democracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iftikhar, posted 01-03-2004 10:19 PM iftikhar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Loudmouth, posted 01-07-2004 2:02 PM Abshalom has not replied
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 01-09-2004 4:58 AM Abshalom has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 24 (76996)
01-07-2004 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Abshalom
01-07-2004 12:07 PM


Great post Abshalom, great use of rhetorical questions (at least they seemed rhetorical to me).
Restrictions on registration to vote and voting itself is something that this country (US) has dealt with for years, women for example were only allowed to vote as of 1920. Add in poll taxes and societal pressures placed on minorities and history, and arguably the present, is not the best example of a representative democracy. The electoral college is still debatable, it does protect some states with small populations but large amounts of land, but it is a throwback to the sovereignty of the original states.
Besides voting, free speech, free press, and freedom to congregate are especially important, and should only be loosely regulated. Freedom to drink a cold frosty one after work was outlawed for awhile, thank goodness they got rid of that stupid ammendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Abshalom, posted 01-07-2004 12:07 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 6 of 24 (77044)
01-07-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Peter
01-07-2004 7:32 AM


There aren't any democracies on this planet though
Yeah, I thought the US was a Republic (representative rule). There's not all that many Americans that really grasp the concept that we don't even really vote for the president; the electoral college does, and they are not obligated, except by precedent, to vote as their state's voters do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 01-07-2004 7:32 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

  
iftikhar
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 24 (77257)
01-08-2004 11:40 PM


Well Done!Gulls n Guys
u provided some really useful information to me.
Now question arises which is then the most democratic nation of the world n on which basis.
Again waitin for some class comments.
Thanks
bye
iftikhar

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 01-09-2004 12:31 AM iftikhar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 24 (77262)
01-09-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by iftikhar
01-08-2004 11:40 PM


most
Of larger countries I think Switzerland qualifies on one point and bums out on another. They, I think, have a lot of direct votes on issues but I'm not sure that women have the vote yet.

Common sense isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by iftikhar, posted 01-08-2004 11:40 PM iftikhar has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 9 of 24 (77288)
01-09-2004 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Abshalom
01-07-2004 12:07 PM


quote:
1) Uncensored Speech, or speech reasonably limited only to protect others against a threat of immediate loss of life, limb, or property.
2) Unbridled Practice of Personal Belief, or practice of belief reasonably limited only to protect others from immediate loss of life, limb, or property. This includes nonviolent civil disobedience.
3) Vociferous Cynicism, Iconoclasm, and Heretical Outbursts of Challenge. Do I need to go into this category in detail? I think not.
These are all to be hoped for, but not unique qualities of a
democracy. With a reasonable autocrat any of those could be
the case ... OK so go find a reasonable autocrat (or even the
right word for that person ) .... but then again go find me
a genuine democracy.
I don't think there are any, but that Switzerland thing sounds
like a good start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Abshalom, posted 01-07-2004 12:07 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Abshalom, posted 01-09-2004 10:45 AM Peter has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 24 (77320)
01-09-2004 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peter
01-09-2004 4:58 AM


A Genuine Democracy
The repeated comment has been made: "No genuine democracy exists on Earth today." True. Why?
Because people cannot seem to operate within the Primary Law: "Do not do to your neighbor, your neigbor's property, or to nature that which is harmful to you, your property, and nature."
Of course, this cardinal law has a flip side: "Extend to your neighbor, your neighbor's property, and to nature, that which assists or benefits you, your property, your neighbor, your neighbor's property, and nature."
In a true democracy there should be no need for autocrats, only teachers, agriculturalists, aquaculturists, foresters, scientists, engineers, instructors, technicians, craftspersons, service personnel, artists, caretakers, caregivers, tax collectors, morticians, facilitators, administrators, record managers, etc.
Politicians as policy makers would be replaced by persons selected on a rotating basis to participate in debates that would be structured to remind the social structure that there is only one Primary Law and that enforcement of that law would be by exile or banishment of severe or repeat violators.
Peace.
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-09-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peter, posted 01-09-2004 4:58 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 01-13-2004 4:49 AM Abshalom has replied
 Message 16 by Mike Holland, posted 01-14-2004 4:53 AM Abshalom has replied

  
defenderofthefaith
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 24 (77549)
01-10-2004 4:31 AM


Yes, the Greeks experimented with true democracy back in the year one, and found allowing every last voter to directly decide what should be done in national situations just didn't work. The masses, to put it bluntly, just don't know what's good for them. Besides which there'd be far too many variations of opinion on what, for example, to do with the national treasury. With so many people it's almost impossible to reach a clear agreement. And there'd be too much voting.
So evolved (found a use for that word!) a new occupation: the politician. The people could choose their favourite style of leader and he could make all the difficult decisions while they lived out their lives in happy oblivion. And in case the people weren't satisfied they could always take him back and get a new one. A lot of countries nowadays are, therefore, representative democracies.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 01-13-2004 4:46 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 12 of 24 (78164)
01-13-2004 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by defenderofthefaith
01-10-2004 4:31 AM


Voting isn't democracy it's majority rule, surely?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by defenderofthefaith, posted 01-10-2004 4:31 AM defenderofthefaith has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 13 of 24 (78165)
01-13-2004 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Abshalom
01-09-2004 10:45 AM


Not True Democracy ... Why?
I think it's more that some people desire power over
others.
I have always considered that anyone who stands for election,
by definition is that last person you should give power to.
What would motivate someone to want to be the supreme power on
the planet in charge of armies and technology sufficient to
subjugate the planet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Abshalom, posted 01-09-2004 10:45 AM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Abshalom, posted 01-13-2004 10:29 AM Peter has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 24 (78189)
01-13-2004 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peter
01-13-2004 4:49 AM


Re: Power-hungry Candidates
Dear Peter:
Some of your suppositions are correct some of the time. Others are blanket generalizations that do not always apply.
You ask, "What would motivate someone to want to be the supreme power on the planet in charge of armies and technology sufficient to
subjugate the planet?"
Answer: Some psychotic disorder I presume; however, I am not qualified to diagnose, and a doctor would give you the more accurate medical or scientific answer.
I would offer the idea that not every candidate that stands for election is a person who simply wants power over others or wants to rule the world. For instance, that generalization most likely would not apply to a county recorder, county coroner, township trustee, etc. These folks usually remain in office for years or seek another similar office with very little inherent power and a whole lot of thankless public service.
Therefore, I take issue politely with your assertion that "anyone who stands for election by definition is the last person to whom you should give power." While your feelings are well founded with regard to many greedy and power-hungry cretins, it is not always the case.
Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 01-13-2004 4:49 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 01-14-2004 4:35 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 24 (78337)
01-14-2004 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Abshalom
01-13-2004 10:29 AM


Re: Power-hungry Candidates
Point(s) taken.
My main concern/feeling was relating to, for example,
UK MP's or running for Prime Minister. I accept that I
am guilty of over-generalisation, as I am sure that there
are some people who enter the political arena with the best
of intentions ... unfortunately we all know where they lead
I think a system of random selection would actually be better
provided that no one person or interest group held power
for a long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Abshalom, posted 01-13-2004 10:29 AM Abshalom has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024