How Democratic is democracy really?

[Rozellelily]

In my case, I am referring from an Australian society political system.
While democracy is better than dictatorship (hello North Korea)- is democracy, as we know it, even “full democracy”?

Ieolitical candidates success is determined on how much cash they can raise for advertising campaigns etc.
Mr/miss little “xyz independent candidate” may be the best and most humble person to run the country but they never become PM because they don’t have the political funds.

The two predominant parties (here) in a sense buy their way into popularity so it’s always one or the other that wins.

So is democracy really full democracy when your only two options are “awful choice one” vs “awful choice two”?

(The only way that independents often get ahead is by “selling out” and joining one of the two popular parties and then their personality often starts changing to more self serving or juvenile as they get caught up in the “political life”.)

How can some people still have faith in politics being a vehicle for change.Once they are “in” they don’t have to keep any promises or be receptive to the community.

I am staring to believe change only happens from people pressure/people’s social movements whether in Europe,Hong Kong,Australia etc…

I think maybe we should all take Ukraine lead and vote a Comedian in as leader instead!

How do you see personally see it?

 

[Wesrock]

Technically we all live in democratic republics at best. It seems to me though that we’re drifting closer to corporatism and oligarchy, though, especially as big money grows proportionally bigger. I think we need serious campaign and lobbying reform in the USA, but it may be too late.

 

[phil19034]

Full Democracy is actually very bad too.

It’s mob rule. And it’s not too hard to influence the mob.

According to Catholic philosophy, the best form of govts is a monarchy lead by a God fearing monarch. But when you have a bad king, it’s a dictatorship.

The same philosophers say true democracy is the worst because it becomes an Oligarchy Of the masses, lead by emotion and few facts.

The compromise is a republic with democratic principles.

The problem today is too many people want a “Representative Democracy” instead of a real “democratic republic.”

representative democracy = the representative is constantly polling the people to determine how to vote

Democratic republic = the people vote in the rep to study the issues and to vote using their own mind, heart, research, religious conviction, etc. Then, if they do a good job, they get re-elected. If the people are not happy, they vote them out.

We need republics in this world, not “more democracy.”

 

[Wesrock]

Full Democracy is actually very bad too.

It’s mob rule. And it’s not too hard to influence the mob.

According to Catholic philosophy, the best form of govts is a monarchy lead by a God fearing monarch. But when you have a bad king, it’s a dictatorship.

The same philosophers say true democracy is the worst because it becomes an Oligarchy Of the masses, lead by emotion and few facts.

The compromise is a republic with democratic principles.

The problem today is too many people want a “Representative Democracy” instead of a real democratic republic.

representative democracy = the representative is constantly polling the people to determine how to vote

Democratic republic = the people vote in the rep to study the issues and to vote using their own mind, heart, research, religious conviction, etc. Then if they do a good job, they get re-elected. If the people are not happy, they vote them out.

We need republics in this world, not “more democracy.”

I am with you on democratic republics. However, the best of the democratic part of it is undermined when the only electable candidates are beholden to special interest groups (of whatever political persuasion). Lobbying isn’t inherently evil, but when your electoral campaign becomes dependent on who the lobbyist represents…

Well, there’s the drifting towards corporatism I mentioned earlier.

 

[ForeverLearn]

Well, there’s the drifting towards corporatism I mentioned earlier.

It appears to me to largely already be there. Big Money rules the day.

 

[Rozellelily]

Speaking of big money,shouldn’t all political donations be anonymous?

Of course then no one would donate because nothing in it for them…

 

[Fauken]

Speaking of big money,shouldn’t all political donations be anonymous?

I doubt that would be enforceable.

 

[whatistrue]

,shouldn’t all political donations be anonymous?

I would actually argue the opposite. Any person or other legal entity should be able to donate whatever they wish to any candidate, but all donations should be public record, easily accessible to any interested party, with stiff penalties on the candidate for non-compliance.

ETA: I would also include political parties, Political Action Committees, or really any entity set up to either advocate for or against a political position or fund political speech or campaigns.

 

[Aquinas11]

Speaking of big money,shouldn’t all political donations be anonymous?

No that would be a disaster.

We can’t separate (1) speech from (2) money that facilitates the speech.

Nothing wrong with money facilitating speech, provided we know where the money is coming from since we don’t want foreign governments influencing an election. Jefferson said the more speech the better, and since speech and $$ facilitating the speech are intertwined, nothing wrong with $$ facilitating speech provided we know where it is coming from.

Obviously CAF facilitates speech and that requires lots of $$ to keep the site going, hire IT staff, etc. Same with a news site (CNN, Fox, etc) or newspaper (NYT), many of which are engaged in political speech (some even officially endorse candidates). To say “no money in politics” would require those sites and newspapers be shut down. Wouldn’t they say “this is an abridgment of my speech!”? OF course, and they’d be right. It doesn’t matter if we’re saying no money donations to a political campaign or no money donations to a news site - in both cases we’re suppressing political speech.

The scary end result of banning $$ donations in politics is that only the rich oligarchs could afford to run a campaign, since they wouldn’t need donations. IS that where we really want to go? Or we pass a law that says Government will fund certain people who run for office , which is even more terrifying - what criteria is Government using to decide which speech is deserving of funding and which isn’t? Gee, I wonder if speech with legitimate critique of Government would get $$.

 

[Rozellelily]

Doesn’t the political party though then get indebted to the causes/views of the donating group?

It seems to me almost like “accepted corruption” because isn’t corruption “secret backscratching” but this is just open backscratching”.

It’s then a case of money talks because if there is a “group b” that is opposed to the wishes of the donating group but they have no money to influence politicians then they can’t get far.

For example here we have Chinese donators giving money to Australian Political parties which they wouldn’t do if there wasn’t some suggestion of “return on investment”.
Personally I don’t mind this,but there are some people who do and if they can’t also “donate to influence” arn’t their voices likely to be lost/less heard?

 

[Wesrock]

Yes, and the giant corporations on the “left” and the “right” speak loudest and are the ones who get listened to and their interests represented, while the parties put on a show and throw scraps to the rest of us. It’s just the way such a system works out.

 

[Aquinas11]

Yes, and the giant corporations on the “left” and the “right” speak loudest and are the ones who get listened to and their interests represented, while the parties put on a show and throw scraps to the rest of us. It’s just the way such a system works out.

Yes, I’m all ears to hear a better system.

I disagree that the “rest of us” are just passive participants (if that’s what you meant). We choose where to invest our $$ (purchasing products or buying stocks) which largely affects value of the giant corporations and we choose what to watch (which affects ratings, which affects advertising revenue, which affects value).

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Yes, and the giant corporations on the “left” and the “right” speak loudest and are the ones who get listened to and their interests represented, while the parties put on a show and throw scraps to the rest of us. It’s just the way such a system works out.

Yes, I’m all ears to hear a better system.

I disagree that the “rest of us” are just passive participants (if that’s what you meant). We choose where to invest our $$ (purchasing products or buying stocks) which largely affects value of the giant corporations and we choose what to watch (which affects ratings, which affects advertising revenue, which affects value).

Barring exceptional circumstances, people are going to consume on what provides the best perceived value for their personal lives, not based on public policy.

There is no perfect system, but contributions should be capped, and yes there should be public campaign financing. I believe opening up flat public financing based on some type of minimal support criteria from a certain number of states and not based on meeting policy litmus tests is possible.

 

[Hodos]

In my case, I am referring from an Australian society political system.
While democracy is better than dictatorship (hello North Korea)- is democracy, as we know it, even “full democracy”?

No, we operate under a republican government, not a democracy. We use the term “democracy” as short-hand for a republic wherein the representatives are chosen through popular election.

So is democracy really full democracy when your only two options are “awful choice one” vs “awful choice two”?

Assuming that you mean republicanism when you say democracy, then yes. Just because you have a “democratic” government doesn’t mean you get what you personally want. What typically happens in democratic societies is that because people have a wide range of self interests, we have to compromise. This means that you may have to compromise on periphery issues or values in order to elect someone that may share your core values. This is actually the genius of Republican government. It is actually supposed to help guard against unbridled radicalism (unless of course the population has itself become radicalized, which we are seeing today).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The problem today is too many people want a “Representative Democracy” instead of a real democratic republic.

representative democracy = the representative is constantly polling the people to determine how to vote

Democratic republic = the people vote in the rep to study the issues and to vote using their own mind, heart, research, religious conviction, etc. Then if they do a good job, they get re-elected. If the people are not happy, they vote them out.

The difference between what you label as “Democratic republic” and “Representative Democracy” is entirely outside the formal system that sets up the government. The difference you describe is entirely a personal choice made by the legislator - whether to listen closely to what his constituents think or to vote his conscience regardless of what his constituents think. And while the latter does have certain idealistic appeal, I wonder how it could be formalized? I suppose we could mandate that once elected, a legislator is not allowed to contact his constituents. His only contact would be one-way campaigning where he makes speeches and they decide, based on what they hear, if they want to re-elect him (or her). Another way to formalize this “detachment” from constantly following the polls instead of their conscience would be to do what we do for Supreme Court Justices to insulate them from public pressure. Once they get the job, they get the job for life. That way they can listen to what the public says, but there is no real incentive for them to follow what the public says over their own conscience.

The first method of formalizing the insulation from public pressure is not practical. It would essentially put the legislator under house arrest for the duration of his term. The second method (lifetime appointment) may be fine for Supreme Court Justices, but I don’t think we want to do that for our congressmen and senators.

So the distinction drawn here is nice in theory, but unworkable in practice.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Full Democracy is actually very bad too.

It’s mob rule. And it’s not too hard to influence the mob.

According to Catholic philosophy, the best form of govts is a monarchy lead by a God fearing monarch. But when you have a bad king, it’s a dictatorship.

The same philosophers say true democracy is the worst because it becomes an Oligarchy Of the masses, lead by emotion and few facts.

The compromise is a republic with democratic principles.

The problem today is too many people want a “Representative Democracy” instead of a real democratic republic.

representative democracy = the representative is constantly polling the people to determine how to vote

Democratic republic = the people vote in the rep to study the issues and to vote using their own mind, heart, research, religious conviction, etc. Then if they do a good job, they get re-elected. If the people are not happy, they vote them out.

We need republics in this world, not “more democracy.”

I am with you on democratic republics. However, the best of the democratic part of it is undermined when the only electable candidates are beholden to special interest groups (of whatever political persuasion). Lobbying isn’t inherently evil, but when your electoral campaign becomes dependent on who the lobbyist represents…

Well, there’s the drifting towards corporatism I mentioned earlier.

That’s why transparency is critical.

 

[phil19034]

Speaking of big money,shouldn’t all political donations be anonymous?

Of course then no one would donate because nothing in it for them…

Honestly, what we need (at least in the US) is a Constitutional Amendment regarding campaign finance

Corporations & business entities should not be allowed to donate to political campaigns. It should only be citizens only. If a CEO wants to donate, fine. He should be able to donate his own personal dollars. But he should not be allowed to donate corporate funds.

 

[phil19034]

Yes, and the giant corporations on the “left” and the “right” speak loudest and are the ones who get listened to and their interests represented, while the parties put on a show and throw scraps to the rest of us. It’s just the way such a system works out.

same with some “so called” non-profits, like Planned Parenthood.

Doesn’t the political party though then get indebted to the causes/views of the donating group?

It seems to me almost like “accepted corruption” because isn’t corruption “secret backscratching” but this is just open backscratching”.

It’s then a case of money talks because if there is a “group b” that is opposed to the wishes of the donating group but they have no money to influence politicians then they can’t get far.

For example here we have Chinese donators giving money to Australian Political parties which they wouldn’t do if there wasn’t some suggestion of “return on investment”.
Personally I don’t mind this,but there are some people who do and if they can’t also “donate to influence” arn’t their voices likely to be lost/less heard?

This is why I personally feel that donations should come from individual citizens only. I personally feel that corporations, companies, non-profits, non-citizens, etc should NOT be allowed to donate money to campaigns. They can create ads about their issues if they like, but they should not be allowed to donate directly or indirectly to any candidate.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Yes, and the giant corporations on the “left” and the “right” speak loudest and are the ones who get listened to and their interests represented, while the parties put on a show and throw scraps to the rest of us. It’s just the way such a system works out.

same with some “so called” non-profits, like Planned Parenthood.

Oh I very much agree.

 

[Rozellelily]

(unless of course the population has itself become radicalized, which we are seeing today).

In which way?