Does democracy work?

[seekerz]

That is quite an absolute statement. How do you think it worked in Germany in 1933? Just grow up and accept the outcome of the election as being the workings of democracy when Hitler gets voted into power? And how did that democratic event fair with respect to the responsibilities of government that the Church teaches us (see my above post)?

Again, no form of government always works. Several forms of government have worked in a given time and place.

Ah, the Hitler analogy. Democracy didn’t cause the rise of Hitler - the support of a majority of his compatriots did that. Perhaps if they had voted against him, he’d have just been a ripple on the pond of history. On the other hand, he might have raised a rebel army and taken power by force…

Democracy works as well as any human enterprise can - the problem is that human beings (being fallible) may sometimes make democratic decisions that turn out not to have been the best. Wrong decisions don’t necessarily mean that the process was wrong, it may simply mean that the decision-makers, being imperfect humans, err occasionally.

As far as political systems are concerned, I’d say the larger the group of the decision-makers (i.e. the electorate), the lesser chance of harm from erroneous or oppressive decisions. It is far easier to change a country by influencing the democratic majority, than it is to wrest power away from a despotic minority. Surely the recent and ongoing Middle East uprisings have amply illustrated the difficulty of the latter?

 

[tafan]

Ah, the Hitler analogy. Democracy didn’t cause the rise of Hitler - the support of a majority of his compatriots did that. Perhaps if they had voted against him, he’d have just been a ripple on the pond of history. On the other hand, he might have raised a rebel army and taken power by force…

It is not an analogy, it is a historical fact. Guessing what might have happened if the large magority of Germans had not voted them into power is meanlingless. The Nazi party came to power via an election landslide in 1933. Thats what can happen with democracies, the majority can make a really bad mistake. Hence it is hard to make the absolute claim that democracies work. They don’t. I can provide other historical examples where they do not work.

Democracy works as well as any human enterprise can - the problem is that human beings (being fallible) may sometimes make democratic decisions that turn out not to have been the best. Wrong decisions don’t necessarily mean that the process was wrong, it may simply mean that the decision-makers, being imperfect humans, err occasionally.

Do they work as well as any human enterprise can? At times. At other times they fail. As I showed above,we know what "working"means with respect to government. At times they dond just make decisions that are not the best, but they don’t work.

As far as political systems are concerned, I’d say the larger the group of the decision-makers (i.e. the electorate), the lesser chance of harm from erroneous or oppressive decisions. It is far easier to change a country by influencing the democratic majority, than it is to wrest power away from a despotic minority. Surely the recent and ongoing Middle East uprisings have amply illustrated the difficulty of the latter?

I don’t know where to start. A couple of thoughts stand out

1. It seems like you are advocating a direct democracy, as opposed to a representative democracy. I am extremely skeptical of that form of government.
2. Even if you are not advocating a direct democracy, it seems your statement flies in the face of subsidiarity. Ie, the larger the state, the larger the electorate.

I will grant you that democracies, in the right time and place, tend to work better than most other forms of government. I am certainly not wanting to throw ours out. I think it naive to thing it is the answer to all of the world’s problems,ie I don’tlike Wilsonian politics.

 

[seekerz]

It is not an analogy, it is a historical fact. Guessing what might have happened if the large magority of Germans had not voted them into power is meanlingless. The Nazi party came to power via an election landslide in 1933. Thats what can happen with democracies, the majority can make a really bad mistake. Hence it is hard to make the absolute claim that democracies work. They don’t. I can provide other historical examples where they do not work.

Do they work as well as any human enterprise can? At times. At other times they fail. As I showed above,we know what "working"means with respect to government. At times they dond just make decisions that are not the best, but they don’t work.

I don’t know where to start. A couple of thoughts stand out

1. It seems like you are advocating a direct democracy, as opposed to a representative democracy. I am extremely skeptical of that form of government.
2. Even if you are not advocating a direct democracy, it seems your statement flies in the face of subsidiarity. Ie, the larger the state, the larger the electorate.

I will grant you that democracies, in the right time and place, tend to work better than most other forms of government. I am certainly not wanting to throw ours out. I think it naive to thing it is the answer to all of the world’s problems,ie I don’tlike Wilsonian politics.

I’d be the first to admit that democracies do not function perfectly. Representative democracies are what I am discussing. My point is simply that it is easier to influence the electorate (whatever the constituency) in a democracy, than it is to wrest power away from powerful dominant elites/groups in non-democratic (or nominally democratic) forms of government.

 

[tafan]

I’d be the first to admit that democracies do not function perfectly. Representative democracies are what I am discussing. My point is simply that it is easier to influence the electorate (whatever the constituency) in a democracy, than it is to wrest power away from powerful dominant elites/groups in non-democratic (or nominally democratic) forms of government.

That is working great in Venezuala now.

 

[seekerz]

That is working great in Venezuala now.

 

[JaKael02]

As far as political systems are concerned, I’d say the larger the group of the decision-makers (i.e. the electorate), the lesser chance of harm from erroneous or oppressive decisions. It is far easier to change a country by influencing the democratic majority, than it is to wrest power away from a despotic minority. Surely the recent and ongoing Middle East uprisings have amply illustrated the difficulty of the latter?

Seekerz;

I totally see what your saying. To add some extension: In an moral democracy, the majority would look out for the rights of the minority. In a non-moral democracy, the majority just looks out for their own interests.

Sure it is difficult to take down tanks/snipers/army’s; but once they fall then the morally upright can come into power and create a moral society.

However, in a dictatorship of relativism, there are no tanks/snipers/army’s to overcome. You must fix the immoral people from within. Although unbloody and less deadly; something that is very difficult to do.

Kind Regards,

James