|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Democracy! who's gonna define | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iftikhar Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
There's only one democratic act -- debating until a concensus
is reached. There aren't any democracies on this planet though (or atleast none that I know of).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4084 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iftikhar Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: These are all to be hoped for, but not unique qualities of ademocracy. 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 soundslike a good start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
defenderofthefaith Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Voting isn't democracy it's majority rule, surely?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 onthe planet in charge of armies and technology sufficient to subjugate the planet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
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 tosubjugate 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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 betterprovided that no one person or interest group held power for a long time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024