Sunday May 27, 2012

Order by Time Order by Popularity

166 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    Mark_McCracken

    I'm from the United States, which is a republic. A republic seems to be a better form of government than a democracy, because there are laws, in the case of the US, a constitution, which prevent majority rule from infringing the rights of the individual.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    I don't think that democracy is the best form of goverment.

    Which is the best, not sure as NO form of Goverment has been implemented the way it was designed to work.

    One think though many of the most succesfull nations and empires that lasted for many decades and even centuries were all NOT democracies.

    Ex.: The Habsburg empire lasted a long time and had much influence across the globe due to intermarriage, etc with other countries rulers and the empire also had a very prosperous population.

    IMHO, Democracy as it is practised now is still a very new form of goverment and hasn't prooven itself yet as being a viable long-term(centuries) way of governing a country and its people.

  • 0

    supercub

    Democracy: the least worst form of government

    What's the alternative? No thanks to that.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Can't recall one country that has a "Democractic" Goverment.

    Most countries seem to have chosen one of the forms of "Republic" Goverment. Among the forms of republic goverment I prefer the "Parliamentary Republic" where head of state is separate from ruling party and has little executive power.

  • 0

    smartacus

    How about a benign dictatorship instead of fractured democracies? With me as the dictator, of course.

  • 0

    mareo2

    I think that the question is not about what "form of democracy" is the best, the question is relevant because some people point to China and say "look they are not a democracy and they are doing good, right? Maybe we need something like that for make the reforms our country need." I born in a military dictatorship that expended a lot of money in weapons, destroyed the economy, kidnaped, tortured and executed people for their political opinions and started a war for a few islands for get popular support. So no matter how corrupt or inept a "democracy" can look, I think that is better than the "undemocratic" options.

  • 0

    Gloobey

    Democracy is the best form of government until something better comes along. Does democracy work? Plainly, the answer to that question is a resounding 'no', but then nothing else works either. For now, we're stuck with it.

  • 0

    techall

    I can think of no nstion on the planet that has a true democracy at this time, most have a representative form of democracy. In a true democracy the populace would have to debate and vote on each and every issue. In the representative form, the populace votes for people of the same thinking to represent them in a forum, whether that be a congress or diet or whatever. The problem with having a true democracy today is that society has gotten too large for it to be possible to have nationwide votes to decide everything that comes up. So the representative form of democracy is about as good as we going to get.

  • 0

    Kronos

    Republic? Or a true democracy?

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    @McCracken, The U.S. is both a constitutional republic and representative democracy and it is this combination that seems to work best at the moment, but it is the constitution and democracy parts that are important, not the republic.

    The U.K. is a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy for example but it has laws and protects individual rights as well as the U.S. does.

    Modern democracy is not the rule of a mob as some here seem to imagine. Democracy is the rule of law based on universal suffrage.

  • 0

    techall

    @Kronos: A republic is a democratic form of government with an independently elected president as the head of state (rather than a prime minister). True democracy (or pure democracy)everybody vote on every issue, representative democracy, people vote for a delegate to representate them in a forum. Not difficult to understand.

  • 0

    Mark_McCracken

    Pleasure - Are you saying the U.S. is basically a representative democracy that is limited by the constraints of a constitution? If so, how is that different from a constitutional republic?

  • 0

    xrc

    Yes, if it's a REAL Democracy. America is a Lobbyist money grabbing vote government. Though they claim to be a democracy. Perhaps having lots of money is the REAL democracy.

  • 0

    TimRussert

    America is a Lobbyist money grabbing vote government. Though they claim to be a democracy.

    America is a constitutional republic, though Obama and Co are trying to push it towards a corporatist fascist state.The word democracy does not appear in the US Constitution. It does not appear in any of the state constitutions either. The framers of our Constitution understood democracy meant mob rule.

  • 0

    sabiwabi

    Democracy can only work if the population is well informed, which is unfortunately not the case in most (all?) countries.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Regardless what form of Democracy is practiced it also needs to have a framework in place for Citizen to call for a referendum to "possible" block a law being passed, oust an unwanted elected leader, etc.

    For me it is not a democracy if I can make my voice only heard once every 4 yrs when elections are held. ;)

  • 0

    techall

    @Zenny11: First amendment ....right to petition (make your voice heard).

  • 0

    Zenny11

    techall.

    Who said I was talking about US democracy?

    Many other countries don't have the US constitution/amendments but got similar frameworks in place that guarantee the same(except for the 2nd amendment as it is not needed).

    But there are democracies like Mozambique, etc where those frameworks are missing.

  • 0

    nisegaijin

    Absolutely no. Democracy is mob rule, not too distant from anarchy. Republican is a rule of law. Law equally applicable to government and citizens.

  • 0

    gonemad

    It doesn't matter whether democracy is the best form of government or not. We would anyway have difficulties to define what "best" means for each of us. The benefit of democracy is that we can safely get rid of a government again when it fails. The latter is much more important.

  • 0

    tclh

    The trouble with democracy is that even GOD can only have 1 single vote!?? OK ,mankind system is not applied to HIM but you get what I mean. Its not a perfect system but much better than a dictatorship .

  • 0

    neogreenjapan

    Can we stop talking about USA in this thread and talk about the various forms of governing? I am all in favor of Anarchism.

    Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society. Emphasises on cooperation and mutual aid.

  • 0

    neogreenjapan

    I believe in decentralization of power and the dismantling of states. Instead have small local communities corporating with other local communities.

  • 0

    Antonios_M

    Modern world does not have a "real" democracy but rather a bad imitation of it. Democracy was born in Greece, developed in Athens and died there some years before Alexander the Great unified the Greek city-states. It was the so-called in Greek "Άμεση Δημοκρατία" (Direct Democracy)... I can not consider the modern ways of governing as "democracy". It would be a joke for someone who knows and understand the meaning of the word.

  • 0

    thetruthhurts

    Disagreement of opinion does not neccessarily mean (and usually does not mean) being uninformed. It simply means having a different opinion. Anyway, in a democracy, one right is to be uninformed if one chooses to be. It is the responsibility of the individual to be informed.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    This is a toughy.... looking at the 'greatest' democracies in the world today is like sitting down to watch a circus -- except nothing ever goes any where. The nations are all brutally in debt, and usually have to main parties who dead-lock anything and everything. On the flip-side probably one of the richest nations in the planet, and growing in power and economy every day, is China. I realize that China is more of a Communist government in name only, but still.

    The IDEA of a Democracy is probably the greatest, but we are all failing, people.

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    Interesting, 47% don't like their right to vote.

  • 0

    MeanRingo

    Hey there Cliff Clavens... I don't imagine they are referring to democracy as it was in antiquity. Y'must be a ball of laughs when yer out with the gang, splitting hairs and all. I'm with Smartacus. That way, I won't be first against the wall.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    PleasreuGelf.

    Very uninformed view. Other forms of goverment also have "Voting", etc. Voting is NOT what makes a demcocracy or even a republic work.

    For me today many democracies fail as most people don't fully understand the Duties, Rights, etc you get as a Citizen, too focused on their rights(don't understand the limits of those) and rather not know about the duties they have to perform.

  • 0

    XXXXX

    yes and no

  • 0

    hedgehog88

    Neither the best nor the worst. But better than any others for the time being.

  • 0

    thetruthhurts

    Neither the best nor the worst. But better than any others for the time being.

    I was under the impression that being the best meant being better than any others.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    You can only be the best for so long and you are ONLY measured against the opponents that step up.

    Once you reach the top, there will always be younger and fresher challengers vying to take your place.

    That is one major fault with sports like MMA, etc the best beats only the competitors that entered the same contests but in the end the "best" loses to a quicker, younger, faster and tougher opponent.

    So the glory of being the best is brief may it be sports, countries, etc.

  • 0

    hedgehog88

    I was under the impression that being the best meant being better than any others.

    Yes, the best you may mean is from the existing selections. My "best" means including the unknown others which have not yet been found, created, or invented. All those who make and equivocal answer to this vote may be because of a hope there's a real "better" best one.

  • 0

    thetruthhurts

    In other words, right now, you consider it the best.

  • 0

    thetruthhurts

    On the flip-side probably one of the richest nations in the planet, and growing in power and economy every day, is China. I realize that China is more of a Communist government in name only, but still.

    Yes, the swell of people rushing to emigrate to China is quite spectacular, isn't it?

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    Zenny11

    I'm always looking forward to being informed so if you could kindly point me in the direction of non-democratic countries with most of the populace still enfranchised.

    Meanwhile for me democracy will, first of all, mean wide based suffrage where people regardless of their wealth, sex or race have the right to vote. In this sense the modern U.S. is a democracy, just as it wasn't at the time of writing the constitution, when a large part of the population had few or no rights. Then it was a true republic.

    Second, it will mean the rule of law protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens. I suppose this we will agree on even if I call it democracy and you call it a republic.

    I know that democracy in itself is not enough, but so isn't a republican government. Republic simply means a state without a monarch. In this sense the States, China or North Korea are republics but only the first one is also a democracy.

    A constitutional republic based on democracy, with checks and balances to ensure separation of powers may not be the ideal form of government but it sure beats communism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, absolute monarchy and oligarchy, as well as all other -cracies including theocracy and kleptocracy. Anarchism may be nice in theory but disastrous and short-lived in practice in my opinion.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Mozambique(example I gave), etc not good enough?

  • 0

    Shumatsu_Samurai

    I find it curious that some people are saying democracy isn't the best form of goverment - but that it is at the moment.

    Isn't the assumption here that the question is asking whether democracy is the best form of government that currently exists?

  • 0

    thetruthhurts

    It certainly was my assumption.

  • 0

    geboren1900

    democracy is money rule. they who think its about people-rule have to read history. its always been and is about a rich intellectual city-class governing the masses. so china communism and fascist-states is not worse in any way- just more honest.

    a better form of government is based on local decision-making and decentralisation of power.

  • 0

    thetruthhurts

    so china communism and fascist-states is not worse in any way

    Yes. Sure. Unless you have to live under them.

    just more honest.

    Based on what?

  • 0

    geboren1900

    They are more honest in the decision-making forms. The elite decides was best for the masses. Its the same in so called western democracy-states.

    And standard of living was as high in rightwing-"fascist"-states (in many case higher) as in so called democratic states.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Guys don't just look at the USA, look globally and across history to decide if democracy is viable(in all of its forms).

  • 0

    thetruthhurts

    They are more honest in the decision-making forms.

    How so?

    The elite decides was best for the masses.

    That may be what they say. However, in the case of China, it is what is best for the government that is primary.

    And standard of living was as high in rightwing-"fascist"-states

    I don't know what states you are talking about. However, I consider freedom non-rightwing, non-fascist states provide as a big part of a high standard of living. Maybe that is just me. I like being able to do what we are doing right here and now.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    There is a statement I once heard. All forms of government can work as long as it really truely is for the benefit people (not just words, but ACTIONS). Even a dictator can be the best form of government as long as he/she supports the people with good will and actually does something for their citizens with that in mind. People that love their government will support it if the government supports them effectively. Goes for democracy, communism, monarchy, dictatorship, etc. If one hasn't noticed the reason why most governments around the world are having issues is because either a person or a group of people in positions of political/government/military power are running their country with only themselves or a small group of people in mind. Power and greed corrupts all forms of government. If those were not factors everyone in every country would most likely not be having any issues, because the citizens would be much more likely to be supported properly without such corruption in government.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    To put it bluntly, there is no "best" way of government. Its only as good as the people that are in power/or elected to lead.

  • 0

    thetruthhurts

    HD,

    I would go with that. The advantage of a democracy seems to lie in the fact that a bad government can be elected out of office more easily.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    thetruthhurts.

    And it worked how often in the states, and an unpopular bill like the "Social Health Bill" got rejected by the majority(many claim it was objected by the majority).

    In my country we ousted 2 heads of state, countered a national health centre/hospital(many heads rolled) and also prevented a nuclear reactor from opening and a dam from from destroying a nature reserve which also might have flooded our capital annually.

    Same token we asked for bicycle roads and got 500km(in the capitol) within a year.

    Now this is democracy for me where we the populace can decide what the goverment, etc can do. The goverment works for US even after they are elected.

    Granted it is a parliamentary goverment which means the head of state has NO power over the military, etc.

    Said our goverment still makes stupid decisions and wastes a lot of funds, bugt we still got some control.

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    Zenny, even in your own words Mozambique is a democracy, so it can't be an example of a non-democratic state. I think my point remains valid: no universal right to vote without democracy.

    I accept that democracy may be criticized for its many weaknesses but I can't understand people rejecting democracy. How can someone willingly give up their right to vote? I'd rather live and remain enfranchised in a constitutional monarchy like the U.K. than be excluded in a republic without democracy like China or indeed the early U.S of A.

    I find anti-democratic view to be morally objectionable as it always implies discrimination against a part of society and concentration of power.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Pleasuregelf.

    Research democracy more and how it been implemented across the ages, etc. There were democratically elected monarchs, dictators, etc.

    Afaik, the only true non-discriminatory form of goverment is Anarchy(in its true implementation).

  • 0

    Zenny11

    FYI, Anarchy don't mean NO laws, etc and Goverment but is against a central goverment, etc.

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    Zenny11, this is not a place to discuss anarchy in all its forms but my opinion is it would be disastrous and short lived in practice. If anything, this is the shortest and surest way to losing sovereignty or power seizure by a dictator.

    My point is a republic with democracy will be better than a republic without it. A monarchy with democracy will be better than a monarchy without it. Democratic processes can fail and lead to dictatorship, but still the former is better than the latter.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Heck, no! All democracy ever results in is squabbling and gridlock.

    North Korea has the best form of government - no squabbling, no traffic jams, and everyone gets to join or watch really neat parades!

  • 0

    Zenny11

    pleasurgelf.

    Suit yourself but why were none of the great empires of history(lasting for centuries, etc) a democracy?

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    Sarge, yes indeedy.

    Zenny, and where are those great empires now? And more importantly, would you like to be a black, female slave in any of them?

    Look at the modern world instead and show me a non-democratic state that flourishes and that you would like to live in disfranchised.

  • 0

    caribjustice

    I'm surprised the votes are so close on this question. Would the folks who voted "no" really like to live under a non-democratic government?

    Democracies are slow to change because the will (interest) of the people need to be accounted for but I'd rather that than a dictator. Even a benign one, sorry smartacus, lol.

    PleasureGelf, I was about to write the difference between a republic and democracy but you beat me to it. Thx for posting that. I think some folks were not clear on the difference.

  • 0

    Beelzebub

    No system can override a country's cultural underpinnings. Enlightened self-interest in many cultures simply means stealing as much as you can grab.

  • 0

    amerijap

    There are so many rubbles on the body politics. Capitalism, free-market economy, shock-jocks are the representing the characters of a liberal democracy. War, Terrorism, and Torture pitch in. The list goes on and on. People are just getting to know the problems in the face of a worldwide economic recession. Wanna go back to the 18th century of Europe or the US? Probably not.

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    I've noticed that votes for democracy go up when America goes to sleep and down when it wakes up. Could it be that in American mind this word is hopelessly colored by the association of the democrats with social welfare, higher taxes or even socialism, which President Obama is so often accused of recently, among other things? What about social justice, equal chances and the right to be heard, my friends?

    I wonder what those opposing democracy have to offer? If it's a republic without democracy, who would they like to disfranchise? Surely, not themselves? If it's dictatorship, absolute monarchy or any other authoritarian government, are they really willing to entrust their life and limb in the hands of others? If it's anarchy or a somehow devolved state without central government, how they imagine it would function without democracy?

  • 0

    WilliB

    Democracy is only the "best" form of government if you have a broadly educated and agreeing population that supports it.

    It is not the "best" form of goverment for everybody, as amply demonstrated by the Bush-Obama administrations to give it the islamic masses of Iran and Afghanistan.

    The idea that the West can exports its relatively well functioning democracy to everywhere is naive to the extreme.

  • 0

    Mark_McCracken

    I wonder what those opposing democracy have to offer?

    A constitutional republic.

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    A constitutional republic, you say. And who do you propose to be deprived of the right to vote?

  • 0

    Mark_McCracken

    And who do you propose to be deprived of the right to vote?

    Children.

  • 0

    TimRussert

    And who do you propose to be deprived of the right to vote?

    Those convicted of serious crimes.

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    If only children and criminals then you are in favor of democracy, you'll find. I don't know of a democratic country where children are entitled to vote. I'm not sure about those convicted, but in most if not all democratic countries suffrage includes adult nationals regardless of their wealth, sex or race etc as long as they haven't been stripped of the rights otherwise.

  • 0

    TimRussert

    "Pure" democracy devolves into mob rule and then anarchy.

  • 0

    Mark_McCracken

    If only children and criminals then you are in favor of democracy, you'll find.

    No, I do not find that. I prefer a constitutional republic.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    @Mark_McCracken: "I prefer a constitutional republic."

    AH yes the greatness of the USA style of government over the rest of the developed worlds democratically elected systems.

    Is seem to often that "Americans" forget or don't know about their own system, they keep talking about their "constitution" like it was some great untouched thing and seem to forget that it has been altered many time over the years, so in other words if the majority (and in some cases the powerful) wish they can change it to deprive any one or any group of any right!

    Just look at "Alien and Sedition Acts" as one example despite your constitution it was used to attack and deprive many people of their rights, the next is your "electoral college" system meant originally to guaranty the rich founders their place at the top and now responsible for electing presidents that don't have actual majorities.

    As opposed to many other countries that call themselves democracies that have presidential election with runoffs until one candidate actually has a majority.

    Constitutional changes although difficult now in the USA are still simpler than many other "Democratically elected" countries and can more easily be done without the majority of its citizens being for it.

    So yes the more "democratic" the process the less likely minorities will be abused!

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    Mark, I don't know what you oppose, but it clearly isn't democracy I support.

    Tim, any examples? And what do you mean by "pure" democracy?

    WilliB, that's certainly a valid point and definitely more stimulating than explaining what democracy is, but again what other forms of government do you think would work better in Afganistan, Iran or Iraq?

    It was the lack of democracy in the first place that got Afganistan and Iraq invaded. Iraq under the iron rule of a dictator, Afganistan torn by a bloody civil war and controlled by local warlords. Iran, with rigged elections, is equally far from being democratic as well.

    My thinking is that the people of all those countries have the right to decide for themselves how they want to be ruled and repeat the process every now and then. If they elect another shah or a dictator, or fail to retain this right then it is another matter, but at least they deserve a chance.

  • 0

    Mark_McCracken

    AH yes the greatness of the USA style of government over the rest of the developed worlds democratically elected systems.

    I'd prefer if you didn't attempt to embellish my opinion. The question is simple, as is my answer.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    Mark_McCracken: "I'd prefer if you didn't attempt to embellish my opinion. The question is simple, as is my answer."

    I am wondering why you and others seem to think the question is about "Democracy" in it's most literal form.

    I for one took it at it's generally accepted from in the light of our modern times.

    This meaning a government elected by plebiscite of it's citizens and therefore democratically elected.

    Now correct me if I am wrong but does not the USA fall into that category?

    Is the USA government not "democratically" elected?

    And therefore is the USA not a Democratically elected republic?

    Look up the meaning of republic and you will find that there are and have been many types of republics including those that did not have fully democratic election but election limited to: only land owners, certain level of people even those of a certain background!

    So what do you mean by a republic if not a "democratic" republic?

  • 0

    Mark_McCracken

    Mark, I don't know what you oppose

    Pleasure - I believe a constitutional republic protects those in the minority better than a democracy.

  • 0

    WilliB

    Pleaseureelf:

    " It was the lack of democracy in the first place that got Afganistan and Iraq invaded. Iraq under the iron rule of a dictator, Afganistan torn by a bloody civil war and controlled by local warlords. Iran, with rigged elections, is equally far from being democratic as well. "

    No. If all countries under "iron rule of a dictator", "torn by worlord" or with "rigged elections" were to be invaded and blessed with "freedom", you would need to invade half the globe. That is patently silly.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    Mark_McCracken:"Pleasure - I believe a constitutional republic protects those in the minority better than a democracy."

    Rome was a constitutional republic from C 509 BC to C 133 BC is that the for you believe in?

    Please explain what you mean by "a constitutional republic"?

    You keep repeating it but never give any concert detail of what that is exactly!

  • 0

    MisterCreosote

    US -style republic with free markets and limited gov beats all. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has been intent for decades on destroying the great American experiment.

  • 0

    gogogo

    Anything but the US system, it just seems weird, American's love to say "we have the best X in the world".... but they don't... Politics is a popularity contest no one will ever get the job done correctly, China seems to be doing very well at the moment... just sayin

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    MisterCreosote:"US -style republic with free markets and limited gov beats all. Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has been intent for decades on destroying the great American experiment."

    Actually the most prosperous period in USA history was after the great depression and reforms were made and safeguard put in, prior to that the USA had a boom and bust cycle approximately every 15 years and this prosperous period started to collapse after Reagan started dismantling those safeguards and then it has been another cycle of boom and bust.

    If you check your history you will see those are facts.

    So if the boom and bust free market is the best "the great American experiment." can offer then count me out!

    Give me a democratically elected government not controlled by big money lobbyist!

  • 0

    MisterCreosote

    Limboinjapan you are wrong. What's commonly called the 'robber baron' era (circa 1875 - 1910) was the most prosperous time in US history, in that the benefits of the free market redounded to the widest number of people in society.

    Give me a democratically elected government not controlled by big money lobbyist!

    Its as easy as instituting a flat tax - - Libertarians and true Repubs want one, Democrats don't.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    MisterCreosote: "Limboinjapan you are wrong. What's commonly called the 'robber baron' era (circa 1875 - 1910) was the most prosperous time in US history, in that the benefits of the free market redounded to the widest number of people in society."

    Interesting revisionist history but then I guess if you only count white males (the only ones with any rights ) at the time then perhaps you are correct!

  • 0

    MisterCreosote

    but then I guess if you only count white males (the only ones with any rights ) at the time then perhaps you are correct!

    The benefits were hardly limited to possessions. Think - do you imagine it was only the life expectancy of the 'white male' that was lengthened during this period? Were white males the sole beneficiaries of the streamlining and price-reducing Rockefeller, Vandebuilt,Carnegie,Ford et al brought to the core economic industries they involved themselves in? Why would they - - or any retailer, in any age for that matter - - have limited their customer base to 'white males' ? You know zero about US history if you believe that in 1890 or 1900 the only ppl in America with 'rights' were white and male. The right to vote is but one right.

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    WilliB, I think you sort of miss my point. My point is democratic countries generally do not attack the States and vice versa. Excluding covert operations all military conflicts of the past 100 years the U.S army took part in were against non-democratic governments. Democracies co-operate, trade and help each other rather than wage a war. Of course, democracy will not always work if there aren't other necessary mechanisms already in place guaranteeing protection of civil rights and freedoms. But my question stands - what other form of government do you think would work better there?

    Mark, a constitutional republic like the USA is a democracy in form if not in name, so I have no quarrel with you. You seem a decent chap who wants everyone (children excluded) to have the right to vote, protect minorities and uphold the rule of law. There's nothing wrong with that.

  • 0

    the_sicilian

    Well, I'd like to know of an alternative to democracy that allows for personal and market freedoms. Show me one that works. Oh, and before anyone says so, communism does not work.

  • 0

    cleo

    Excluding covert operations all military conflicts of the past 100 years the U.S army took part in were against non-democratic governments.

    Oh my, what a giveaway.

  • 0

    WilliB

    Pleaseuregelf:

    " But my question stands - what other form of government do you think would work better there? "

    Work better where? You mean in your examples of Iraq or Afganistan? In countries with a muslim population, you need an authoritarian system to keep islam under control. Otherwise, the population, indoctrinated by their clerics, will vote themselves to Sharia. You can see how it played out in Iraq. Saddams secular regime is now being rapidly replaced by an Iran-style Shiite mullah dictatorship.

    Democracy can work in Western countries, because the population broadly agrees with it and accepts the laws passed by their representatives.

    To assume that you can export such a system to every corner of the world is laughably naive.

  • 0

    MisterCreosote

    Democracy, free markets (deregulation) brought you the internet...

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    MisterCreosote:"Democracy, free markets (deregulation) brought you the internet..."

    No actually government spending in many forms including the military created the Internet and business just piggybacked on it!

  • 0

    Nessie

    Democracy, free markets (deregulation) brought you the internet...

    Not quite. The US Deparment of Defense and public agencies in Europe had a not insignificant hand in it.

  • 0

    AuntyAmerican

    What the American's consistantly fail to grasp is that democracy cannot be forced upon people from above; it has to come from within, from the people.

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    Cleo, the States sure has had a few dark moments. Point me to a country that hasn't. Nobody claims democracy prevents all evil, merely that it prevents it better than other forms of government.

    WilliB, Saddam's secular regime massacred Shi'ites, Kurds and engaged in many wars, eventually bringing the country to its knees. I don't see how Iraq was better off with him for a leader.

  • 0

    yabits

    What's commonly called the 'robber baron' era (circa 1875 - 1910) was the most prosperous time in US history, in that the benefits of the free market redounded to the widest number of people in society.

    Ida Tarbell, Jane Addams, Upton Sinclair, and William Demerest Lloyd emphatically disagreed with that dumbest of statements.

    Common sense ought to be enough to prove the statement false in that "the widest number" should be reflected in a very large middle class. We know that the so-called "gilded age" actually represented one of the widest wealth disparities in American history.

  • 0

    cleo

    the States sure has had a few dark moments. Point me to a country that hasn't.

    Right. So why make a point of claiming the US army is squeaky-clean except when it isn't, if it's no different from other countries when it comes to a history of 'dark moments'? During the Vietnam war, US-led secret bombing raids over Laos left behind millions of unexploded cluster bombs that continue to maim and kill civilians today....So far, the US has contributed an average of about $3m a year to bomb removal efforts in Laos. In contrast, the US spent more than $2m a day (about $17m in today's dollars) for nine years dropping the bombs in the first place. That's a dark 'moment' that has lasted over half a century, one that most Americans who love their country and are proud to hold it up as an example for the rest of the world to follow are probably unaware of, and one many less 'democratic' countries would have a hard time beating.

    (website) guardian.co.uk@ commentisfree@cifamerica@ 2010@sep@02@ laos-usa (replace all the @s with slashes)

    Not saying democracy isn't good. It appears to be better than anything else the human race has come up with so far. If we were all nice people communism would work, but we aren't so it doesn't. But sometimes democracy doesn't do a very good job of controlling the not-so-nice people, either. Especially when they have lots o'money.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    Look the point I was trying to make is simple, the question is a little vague, but knowing the way things are run at JT I highly doubt that anyone there was talking about "Democracy" in the full literal meaning.

    If you take the question as I think is is meant ( I may be wrong ) then what we are looking at is a democratically elected government by it's citizens as opposed to governments of these types Monarchies with full powers, Religious controlled, Totalitarian, dictatorships, Single party ruled (usually with only one candidate, often either communist or Fascist), etc...

    And if that is the question then anyone with a bit of sense would answer yes and they would also have to include the USA in the group of Democracies other wise what is it? A republic is a form of representative democracy!

    Now what form should that democracy take or is best is where we can debate until pigs can fly.

    There are some places that are democratic but in a way that many here would not view it as that.

    For example some places have a Monarchy that rules but it is not a hereditary monarchy but an elected form that has been around for centuries and his rein is limited in time and is dependant on tribal leaders that are also elected by the local population, in some of these cases this form was interrupted by "western colonialism" and a brief period of "western style democracy" only to end up proving disastrous.

    It turns out that this traditional form of government has more checks and balances in order to avoid one particular group gaining power over the smaller ones ( usually achieved by a rotation of the monarchy, meaning the next monarch must be chosen from a different group then those that proceeded until all groups have had there turn and then the rotation starts allover again)

    May seem crazy to some but in these places it works and has worked for centuries till outsiders stuck their noses into things!

  • 0

    PleasureGelf

    I'm not going to white-wash American history to defend democracy. I don't think nor claim the US army is squeaky clean but I dare say it has a better track record than non-democratic countries such as soviet Russia, China, half of Africa or that country that Godwin's rule forbids mentioning so early in this thread. The only democratic country that makes it into top 20 democides of the 20th century is the United Kingdom, mostly for its engagement in the colonies, according to R.J. Rummel's calculations at least, although American bombing is mentioned as well.

    In my opinion it's not terribly important but it counts for democracy that there have been very few military conflicts between two democracies and please let me rest my point here since on the whole we agree.

  • 0

    stormcrow

    "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried."

    Winston Churchill

  • 0

    vulcan

    Depends on the type of people/race you're dealing with. If you're dealing with people who only think of basic instincts like sex and eating and staying warm or cool then you need to handle/govern them differntly than those who have more humanism.

  • 0

    sf2k

    A real democracy, not the American corporate $$$ version

  • 0

    TimRussert

    Interesting results. 49 percent of JT readers believe there is something better than democracy. Yet, none of them can explain what it might be.Why the reticence? Why the timidity?

  • 0

    jruaustralia

    "Liberty is the possibility of doubting, the possibility of making a mistake, the possibility of searching and experimenting, the possibility of saying No to any authority - literary, artistic, philosophic, religious, social, and even political." Ignazio Silone

  • 0

    kenzoz

    Not when the politicians are d kinda dumb or confused as in the Jap democratic system over the padst 6 years or so.

  • 0

    mikejacobs

    Geez, it seems like people who are supporting "constitutional republic" and are against democracy are the brainless, do you even know where the word republic even come from? Rome, res publica meaning "matter of the people" or literally, public affair. Here is the offical definition of republic: "A republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government". Does that sound like democracy, because it is==, it depends on how democratic a system is, just view democracy as a superset and the republic is a subset of that superset. Sure there can be overlaps and so on, but you get the idea.

    Now can we execute all the idiots who are against democracy and support constitutional republic? Oh wait, we can't, stupid democracy development doesn't allow me to>>.sarcasm

  • 0

    Zenny11

    or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government

    "Or some portion" can also mean aristocracy, exclude women and people of lower standing from voting, etc.

    Point here is "supreme control" by a possible minority, like cartels, unions, etc.

  • 0

    mikejacobs

    And your point is? @Zenny, what is it you support, in your earlier posts you have stated your non-support of democracy.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    My poinst is that your statement was flawed as what you stated wasn't covered by the definition you posted.

    Never said I don't support democracy, I just don't feel it is the best form of goverment.

    Very big difference, we are NOT discussing support here but which system might be better.

    You cited Rome as the source for a republic being democratic, how many people had voting rights there, etc?

  • 0

    mikejacobs

    Basically every roman citizen had votings right, so yeah. Every Roman citizen was able to run for office, however depending on your status, you may be restricted from some of the office.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    And how many Roman citizens that could vote lived in the Roman Empire.

    Percentage is fine. Remember soldiers, slaves, etc were all excempt.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    mikejacobs at 06:25 PM JST - 7th October

    "Basically every roman citizen had votings right, so yeah. Every Roman citizen was able to run for office, however depending on your status, you may be restricted from some of the office."

    Zenny11 at 06:28 PM JST - 7th October

    "And how many Roman citizens that could vote lived in the Roman Empire.

    Percentage is fine. Remember soldiers, slaves, etc were all excempt."

    Guys we are now debating more a more than 2000 year old Republic slaves, soldiers, are not really relevant ( if you with to that was the same in USA, UK etc.. not that long ago).

    But back to the point Rome for it's time was a Democratically elected Republic that like most of today's Democratically elected governments went through many changes to the point that at one point all Citizens were eligible for all positions. And again I will effusive for it's Time!

    If you read my post at 10:48 PM JST - 6th October you will see that there isn't just a single one size fits all version of democracy and that seems to be the problem or misunderstanding here, one form may work better form one type of society and not be practical for another but it does not mean that one is better than the other but just that it is different.

    Ideally full democracy would be nice if and this is a big IF everyone respected everyone but that is often not the case and in many places where 2 or more different peoples share the same space and historical differences run deep sometimes a different variation of "Democracy" is needed and in some cases has worked for a very long time.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    Sorry that should be emphasize not effusive

  • 0

    mechadamuramu

    Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.

    ~Winston Churchill in a speech in the House of Commons on 11 November 1947

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Democracy for me has the same downfall as other forms of goverment that been tried = the human element. Democracy more so as more humans are involved in the decision making process.

    As I said before too many people in todays democracy insist too heavily on their rights but forget their duties.

    Also this is a personal dislike with the US System, the President/Head of State should NOT be in charge of the Military. A Position that is easily abused and can cause much harm and disagreement.

  • 0

    xrc

    Democracy in America are the "Lobbyist" who collect money for the senate's or congress's vote.... with nothing to do with what the people voted for...

  • 0

    Frungy

    Greek democracy worked. The country was managed by normal people who were chosen randomly, kindof like jury duty, and they had short terms and were compensated based on what they would normally earn (not some fixed rate, but rather on their previous years' earnings). What this meant was that you ended up with various perspectives on an issue, it was the perspective of the average guy in the street and if you didn't like that perspective then just wait a year and he'd be gone. Not much could get done in a year, and if a policy was unpopular then it got changed, so over a decade only the best policies remained.

    And finally, and most importantly, the delegates had no special protections or privileges, which meant that if you decided to declare yourself dictator or something then a mob of citizens was free to come and explain the error of your ways to you with an number of dull instruments.

    The problem with modern politics is simple, it's a career rather than a duty. People do it not because they like politics or want to help people, but because the money is good and they enjoy the power. People who want power are not the people you want in positions of power.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. In a Democracy if your neighbors like your house and land they can take it away from you because they are the majority.

    The best form of government is a Constitutional Republic which is what the United States is. In a Constitutional Republic an individual's Rights are protected. In a Democracy the mob rules and people have no rights if the majority deems you don't have any.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    SimonFox:"Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. In a Democracy if your neighbors like your house and land they can take it away from you because they are the majority.

    The best form of government is a Constitutional Republic which is what the United States is. In a Constitutional Republic an individual's Rights are protected. In a Democracy the mob rules and people have no rights if the majority deems you don't have any."

    Where do Americans get this stuff???

    FYI a republic is a forme of Democrasy.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    mikejacobs "Now can we execute all the idiots who are against democracy and support constitutional republic? Oh wait, we can't, stupid democracy development doesn't allow me to."

    Actually, mikejacobs you prove my point. In a democracy you COULD execute all the "idiots" if the majority rules since those "idiots" would not have any rights if the mob deems they don't.

    The US is a Constitutional Republic with DEMOCRATIC ELEMENTS (like the voting system for example).

  • 0

    SimonFox

    Frungy "Greek democracy worked."

    For the minority. Ironic isn't it?

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Frungy. Well said.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    Zenny11 "Also this is a personal dislike with the US System, the President/Head of State should NOT be in charge of the Military."

    Actually the President is NOT in charge of the military, Congress is, according to the Constitution. Only during times of war can Congress give their power over the military to the President. The reason why it seems like the President is always in charge of the military is because the US is ALWAYS at war. Yes, there used to be actual times of Peace. We may never see those days again.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    I thought the President was the CIC as soon as he was sworn in? Not so?

  • 0

    SimonFox

    Ha ha, every time people try to defend pure democracy they prove my point.

    Frungy "And finally, and most importantly, the delegates had no special protections or privileges, which meant that if you decided to declare yourself dictator or something then a mob of citizens was free to come and explain the error of your ways to you with an number of dull instruments."

    In a Constitutional Republic the mob cannot bludgeon someone they disagree with because that individual has a right to the safety of their person. The Constitution keeps the "human error" element of democracy at a minimum.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    Where do Americans get the idea that they are the only place to have a constitution?

    Sorry guys to bust your bubble but most if not all the Democracies in the world have one and they all have protection of civil, religious, minority and speech, and in many of these countries it is harder than it would be in the USA to "amend" their constitutions if they ever tried to changes those rights!

    And one of the biggest reasons is that they unlike the USA have actual multi party systems making it possible for those minorities that you seem so worried about to have a direct voice in the government!

  • 0

    SimonFox

    John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    SimonFox "In a Constitutional Republic the mob cannot bludgeon someone they disagree with because that individual has a right to the safety of their person."

    He wrote "you decided to declare yourself dictator " so I guess that in your "constitutional republic" you are saying that it would be find to declare yourself dictator and it would be accepted!

  • 0

    SimonFox

    I cannot paste the whole list of government types here so please go to Wikipedia and do a search for a type of government and then look on the right of the page to see the complete list of governments.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    From Wikipedia: Though a Constitutional Republic is not a pure democracy it necessarily has some democratic elements, such as ability of the people to elect a president (in the U.S. the majority of the population is checked here too, as popular vote of the people does not necessarily decide the winner).

  • 0

    SimonFox

    Feeling a bit more educated yet?

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    SimonFox:"John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." & "tyranny of the majority"

    Nice quoting Adams the president that then implemented the "Alien and Sedition Acts" that went clearly against the his precious constitution and proceeded to arrest all those who disagreed with him including Newspaper editors and congressmen

    Wonderful example of a constitutional republic.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    limboinjapan "He wrote "you decided to declare yourself dictator " so I guess that in your "constitutional republic" you are saying that it would be find to declare yourself dictator and it would be accepted!"

    No, because declaring yourself dictator would be infringing on the rights of people to be able to vote for their representative. yawn getting tired of always being right..

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    SimonFox:"Feeling a bit more educated yet?"

    No are you?

  • 0

    SimonFox

    limboinjapan "Where do Americans get the idea that they are the only place to have a constitution?"

    Who said that? I am fully aware that the Constitution of the US is based upon earlier constitutions going back to the Magna Carta and even ancient Babylonian law.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    limboinjapan, ever heard of a "straw man"? You just gave a perfect example of one. I was giving a quote to show what a Constitutional Republic is, not saying that John Adams was a great man. You cannot support your argument by attacking the idea of a Constitutional Republic so you set up the straw-man John Adams to attack. I will not stoop to your level of argument. I have better things to do. Good day, sir.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    SimonFox: "limboinjapan, ever heard of a "straw man"? You just gave a perfect example of one.""You cannot support your argument by attacking the idea of a Constitutional Republic so you set up the straw-man John Adams to attack. I will not stoop to your level of argument. I have better things to do. Good day, sir.

    I see when the argument shows that the often delusional utopian American view of themselves is not the truth then its good bye.

    So you claim I attacked the man and not the idea well then let me give you some more examples of the failure of the Supposed Constitutional republic that is not a democracy.

    1-) House Committee on Un-American Activities: which violated so many parts of the USA constitution in was not funny and due to the set 2 party system nothing was done about it for years and even after, those who were persecuted did not get their lives back but continued to be persecuted.

    Such type of witch Hunts did not take place in the other so called democracies!

    2-) The civil rights movement: At a time when Black artist were moving or living in places like Canada, France, Germany, UK because in their own country the USA they could not even stay in the Hotels they were headlining, in a large part of the USA "Colored" had to use separate facilities to "Whites" or couln't even enter places something that was not going on in these other democracies.

    And was it the Republic or the Constitution that changed this situation? NO it was literally the MOB it was riots, marches and general disobedience of the laws by the MOBS that changed things.

    So seeing that the USA Republic is basically a democracy I guess you are right a democracy is mob rule.

    Now I am not here to attack the USA or its form of government but I do get tired of Americans always making the claim that their system is so much better then the rest and that somehow Democracy is a dirty word and equal to Anarchy, communism or a dictatorship.

    Americans like their system that is great keep it, other like their's so leave them alone but please wake up to the fact that the American system is a form of democracy and I highly doubt that those at JT who posed the question had the literal meaning of Democracy in mind when they asked it.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    limboinjapan: "I see when the argument shows that the often delusional utopian American view of themselves is not the truth then its good bye."

    I'm not an American.

    limboinjapan: "...but I do get tired of Americans always making the claim that their system is so much better then the rest.."

    I'm not an American.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    limboinjapan:

    1) House Committee on Un-American Activities: which violated so many parts of the USA constitution in was not funny and due to the set 2 party system nothing was done about it for years and even after, those who were persecuted did not get their lives back but continued to be persecuted.

    Such type of witch Hunts did not take place in the other so called democracies!

    SimonFox: Yes, you are right. The House Committee on Un-American activities is unConstitutional. Seems you are helping my argument there. Uh, anyway..

    limboinjapan: 2)The civil rights movement: At a time when Black artist were moving or living in places like Canada, France, Germany, UK because in their own country the USA they could not even stay in the Hotels they were headlining, in a large part of the USA "Colored" had to use separate facilities to "Whites" or couln't even enter places something that was not going on in these other democracies.

    SimonFox: Again, you are proving my point. Racism is unConstitutional. The majority "whites" deemed that the minority "blacks" had less rights. That is actually pure democracy. Under the Constitution of the US and the Bill of Rights "blacks" should have the same rights as "whites".

    Well, thanks for helping me prove my point about the advantages of a Constitutional Republic over a Democracy limboinjapan.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    People seem to be ignorant about the government of the US, sadly many of them may be serving in the US Armed Forces.

    The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution of the United States states that the People have the right to elect representatives in a democratic fashion (the Electoral College that was later introduced to represent the slave population was actually an attempt to mitigate the rights of "blacks" that were being ignored, that is why the majority sometimes may not have the majority vote. The Electoral College should be abolished because it is antiquated). So, the use is not a democracy, it has democratic elements. Some people may want to re-think their vote above.

    A would-be dictator loves democracy because if "mob rules" a would-be dictator needs to only convince the majority to make them leader. That's the irony of democracy. If the majority rules they want a dictator then they get a dictator.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    SimonFox: "Yes, you are right. The House Committee on Un-American activities is unConstitutional. Seems you are helping my argument there. Uh, anyway.."&"Well, thanks for helping me prove my point about the advantages of a Constitutional Republic over a Democracy limboinjapan."

    Well sir you can try and twist things as you like but under most of the other so called democracies at the time such abuse of power did not occur and did not need to be addressed with mob rule in the streets

    Owing to the fact that the minorities in those other democracies can have a direct voice in their respective legislatures due to a true multi party system.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    Hitler was voted into power in 1933 (democracy!). Alas, the Germans did not have a Constitution and Bill of Rights to shield them from the evils that were to come..

  • 0

    neogreenjapan

    The best form of governing is Anarchism. This is also a form of democracy. But in order to make anarchy work everyone has to be an anarchist. If you force someone to be one then that is not anarchism. I also advocate a world free from nations. These are fake boundaries which is no longer needed. People will tend to voluntarily cooperate in small groups - where social accountability is usually the highest, where the threat of scarcity is minimal; when their basic needs are met relatively unconditionally. The current nation-state regulated capitalist(it's not a free-market) system squashes intrinsic motivation much of the time, whilst extrinsic motivators like money can foster short-term thinking, crush creativity, crowd out good behavior and become addictive.

  • 0

    Junnama

    Techically German did have all those things but they were suspended by the Enabling Act.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    TimRussert:"Lefties like to imagine this committee was set up in order to carry out "witch hunts" of innocent little socialists in Hollywood but it was in fact created ( 1938 ) in response to the rise of the KKK."

    Actually it started with the Overman Committee in 1918 investigating Bolsheviks and snowballed form there, but I will point out the "Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations" that would not be acceptable in most other Democracy due to its power to destroy people lives just on the basis of accusation and innuendos.

    Is this what you call protecting peoples rights?

  • 0

    SimonFox

    limboinjapan, you say that the US Constitution was abused.. Um, then you are agreeing with me that the US Constitution is good and shouldn't be abused? How does the US Constitution lead to the abuse of itself? It doesn't. There is no self-destruct mechanism in the Constitution that destroys it. A human has to do it. So, you are actually saying that humans are flawed, not the US Constitution. So, your argument in this case is invalid.

    Nowhere in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that minorities should be denied rights, it actually states that they do. It clearly states that the People have rights that cannot be taken away. Now if some person, private group or political entity wants to consider some people as being the People and some people aren't, well, that's human error, not the Constitution's.

    As, for the "true multi-party" system, the US Constitution does not say there must be only two parties.

    Sure, the US Constitution has been twisted, abused etc but it doesn't make the Constitution bad.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    So, limboinjapan, you are really criticizing the individuals that abuse the laws given and rights stated by the Constitution of a Constitutional Republic not the actual form of the government itself.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    neogreenjapan: "I also advocate a world free from nations."

    Naive. We need nations to be fire-walls from tyranny. If you don't like your government you have a choice to flee to another.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    People need to realize that a Constitutional Republic fixes the problems caused by a pure democracy. The 1 sheep has the right to not be eaten by the (majority) 2 wolves.

  • 0

    SimonFox

    Junnama: "Techically German did have all those things but they were suspended by the Enabling Act."

    Yes, you are right. Just like the Patriot Act in the US.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    SimonFox:"Hitler was voted into power in 1933 (democracy!)."

    I do get so tired of the Hitler thing why does someone always have to resort to that!

    And Again I have to educate people on history Hitler was not voted into power he was appointed Chancellor by Bismark and then proceeded to consolidate power through pure terror during a time of great upheaval. Basically it was a coup d'etat of sorts and then he proceeded to destroy the constitution Germany had!

    And despite what you may think such a thing Constitution or not it is theoretically possible in the USA or anywhere else.

    The Germans at the time though their constitution would protect them but brut force and pure terror does not care for a piece of paper

    Do try and check the minimum out please!

  • 0

    neogreenjapan

    Naive. We need nations to be fire-walls from tyranny. If you don't like your government you have a choice to flee to another

    State are undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, be better to have a stateless society. Governments is primarily an agent of corruption and injustice. Instead of having states, it would be better for the individuals to work in smaller local communities. The best way to describe Anarchism would be to say it is in an extention of Libertarianism. I don't think there will be a revolution some time soon because most people are stuck with the slave think mentality. Afraid of freedom, with freedom comes responsibility.

  • 0

    TimRussert

    Property rights, rule of law, free speech, separation of church of state, free markets, the formula is pretty obvious to me. Just examine which countries did the most to liberate the world from the drudgery of the lives 99 percent of mankind led before the Industrial Revolution; and then also examine which nations did the most to lengthen life expectancy.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    TimRussert:"Property rights, rule of law, free speech, separation of church of state, free markets, the formula is pretty obvious to me. Just examine which countries did the most to liberate the world from the drudgery of the lives 99 percent of mankind led before the Industrial Revolution; and then also examine which nations did the most to lengthen life expectancy."

    Yes, yes, yes lets not forget all the coup d'etat's it orchestrated against Democratically elected government installing right wing dictators in order to better exploit the people and resources of those countries at the behest of USA corporation, you have heard the term "Banana Republic" well that's where it came from!

  • 0

    neogreenjapan

    TimRusert's democracy which is the neo con right winged thought of democracy is not really democracy. Let us not forget the democratic election boycotts in places such as Lebanon and Palestine by the American government as well as propping dictators with cash in order to crush democratic social reform movements in 3rd world countries. *A free society free from state authority will produce people who are more in tune with both their own and others' individuality and needs, reducing individual conflict. Remaining disputes would be solved by reasonable methods, for example, the use of juries, mutual third parties, or community and workplace assemblies. * People are capable of moral improvement and cooperation but now are enslaved by institutions that confine them.

  • 0

    TimRussert

    Yes, yes, yes lets not forget all the coup d'etat's it orchestrated against Democratically elected government installing right wing dictators in order to better exploit the people and resources of those countries at the behest of USA

    It? America alone? Reread my post. The UK, the US, Holland, Germany, France, Israel are among the nations I would credit for the advances I spoke of.

    And sorry, but any mention of what the US did during the Cold War that fails to mentions the Soviet menace we challenged in places like S America is uninformed or dishonest, or maybe it's just sour grapes...

  • 0

    neogreenjapan

    One example of anarchy thought is that in baseball in Japan, you can bring in your own drinks to the game. People bring in bottles of shochu and cans of beers, yet you rarely see people attacking each other and see people turn violent. Because they have the freedom to take in what they want they also feel the responsibility to act within the moral boundaries.

  • 0

    neogreenjapan

    TimRussert.

    Since WW2, no other country have invaded, bombed, perverted elections, installed dictators, over thrown democratic governments as much as US have. US have intervened in elections in at least 30 countries. Dropped bombs and people on 30 countries. This country who likes to talk about freedom and democracy and other nice words, are doing the exact opposite to this day and have been ever since WW2.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    @TimRussert: Sorry got you mixed up with others that seem to think only the USA system is the best and for some fantastical reason do not think it is a democracy.

    And for the record the USA has a fine democratic system it may not be what I would choose but they like it and that is good enough for me.

    If I get your meaning, it is that, it was democracy that has brought most if not all the advances in what could be described as improving regular peoples everyday lives and that is most irrefutably so, Democracy in all its different shape and forms is probably the single most positive influence in History ( well perhaps fire and farming could challenge that statement)

    "And sorry, but any mention of what the US did during the Cold War that fails to mentions the Soviet menace we challenged in places like S America is uninformed or dishonest, or maybe it's just sour grapes..."

    And again my apologies my remarks were based on my improper comprehension of your post!

    I think it is safe to say that every government no mater how well meaning have made mistakes the USA no more and no less then any other country!

  • 0

    CrazyAmerican

    We are a Republic not a democracy. So I don't know that a True Democracy has even been tried yet.

  • 0

    bdiego

    It's not a great form of government, but it's certainly better than the alternatives lol.

    Don't conflate words here. There are two meanings to democracy, one meaning is mutually exclusive with a republic and the other is not. The question is clearly referring to the latter.

    City states in Greece tried democracy to a large extent, where every law was voted on by everyone rather than representatives. In the same way, the various cantons of Switzerland operate more as a Democracy, whereas the union of all cantons is a Republic. This is also another case where they are not mutually exclusive. A notable example is that Hong Kong is not really Communist, even though it is ruled over by "Communists" (who are anything but).

  • 0

    goodDonkey

    WilliB

    It is not the "best" form of goverment [government] for everybody, as amply demonstrated by the Bush-Obama administrations to give it the islamic masses of Iran and Afghanistan.

    Put another record on!

  • 0

    acuteandchronic

    "A republic seems to be a better form of government than a democracy" People, people -- get your terminology right.

    The term "republic" is very general, and covers any form of government other than anarchy or monarchy. It therefore includes most types of democracy, and most governments of the world, including various dictatorships.

    A country's being constituted as a republic does not guarantee good government. Most countries around the world are republics, but if we compare them to constitutional monarchies, such as Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK, and Spain, we find that in terms of the usual indicators (such as political stability, relative lack of corruption, prosperity, health, education, peace, etc.), the constitutional monarchies compare favourably with the best republics, and most republics are worse.

    Since there is no absolute democracy anywhere, and all countries are in fact oligarchies (varying in degree of openness), we must consider democracy to be a matter of degree. If there is universal adult suffrage in reasonably frequent national elections, and opposition parties are not suppressed, and elections are not rigged by the government, then we can say that a country is to a high degree democratic. If some or all of these conditions do not apply, then we can say it is less democratic. The least democratic would be an absolute monarchy (of which the current examples are Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland and the Vatican City), or an absolute dictatorship.

    When we look around the world, we can see that some democratic countries are corrupt, inept, and unstable), while some less democratic countries are comparatively well governed. The rich countries of the West are all highly democratic, and at least fairly well governed. This however does not imply that good government is caused by democracy. Causality could be the other way round: It could be that if a country is peaceful, prosperous and well educated, it tends to become more democratic. It could even be that there is no causal link at all, and the fact that the West is simultaneously both democratic and prosperous is just an accident of history.

  • 0

    seaforte03

    Since we're basically making statements about the US government form of democracy which was forced onto Japan - firstly the USA was never created as a democracy - it was created as a republic. Secondly - the political system as practiced in the USA used to be based on the constitution - "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - but it's been perverted to "of the big business and banks, ..." and it's "people" are just tax paying cattle.

    US foreign policy flip flops with each change of president or congress - which means every 4-8 years.

    The real issue is government versus the people. An empowered people (aka armed) creates a perfect check and balance against a corrupt government - hence the much debated 2nd amendment to the US constitution (the right to bear arms).

    Regretfully, fear is the initial basis for respect. Love and mutual respect come with time and maturity - but I have NEVER heard anyone say they love their government - love their country, love their homeland - but NEVER love their government - especially expats.

  • 0

    Frungy

    SimonFox at 11:16 AM JST - 8th October Ha ha, every time people try to defend pure democracy they prove my point. Frungy "And finally, and most importantly, the delegates had no special protections or privileges, which meant that if you decided to declare yourself dictator or something then a mob of citizens was free to come and explain the error of your ways to you with an number of dull instruments." In a Constitutional Republic the mob cannot bludgeon someone they disagree with because that individual has a right to the safety of their person. The Constitution keeps the "human error" element of democracy at a minimum.

    And this is what makes constitutional republics flawed. When "the people" lack any recourse when an elected official misrepresents their wishes then there is no real democracy. Bludgeoning people to death isn't ideal, but at the moment the politicians know that they only have to fool people for a few weeks around election time and then they can get back to "business as usual". In Greek democracties there was no limit to when people could turn around and say, "Stop mucking about.".

    Ironically the principal of revolution against a corrupt government is enshrined in the American constitution.. and the American government has taken every possible step to ensure that it is impossible for the people to actually successfully revolt no matter how incompetent their rule. That's hypocrisy in the very "Constitutional Republic" that you claim is the epitome of democracy.

  • 0

    TheRat

    Democracy is only for the rich--they own the media and are well-apt at using it, or getting across their message. Look at Pakistan's democracy. That fool of a Prime minister wouldn't even interrupt his vacation in Europe even when 1/5 of his country was under water. Or that former prime minister of Indonesia, a woman. Finally after a month of genocide in one of the islands, maybe Sumatra, she flogged her butt over there to make an appearance and then spent TWO hours there before flying back. GW didn't even visit New Orleans when it was underwater and people were dying. Instead he shared a birthday cake with his buddy McCain. The elected spit on us and are our elites--so they think.

  • 0

    mikehuntez

    Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Anarchism could all have good points and bad points found in them. I just think Democracy has less bad points about it. With Communism, Socialism, and Fascism you get totalitarianism which is not ideal. With Anarchism we'd end up back to feudalism. I think Democracy has given us a better chance to grow although not perfect it's better than the alternatives.

  • 0

    acuteandchronic

    seaforte0:

    Since we're basically making statements about the US government form of democracy which was forced onto Japan

    Yes, and the USA and Japan are democratic to about the same degree and in the same way. That is to say, legislators are directly elected by the people every few years. There are plenty of differences in detail, but the basis for calling Japan a democracy is the same as the basis for calling the USA a democracy.

    firstly the USA was never created as a democracy - it was created as a republic.

    That statement is unduly popular, because it is profoundly wrong. The USA was created as a specific kind of republic, to wit, a democratic republic. Election of officials is built in to the system. A republic could easily have been completely undemocratic -- e.g., the government could appoint its own successors without consulting the citizenry. The Soviet Union was a republic, but not a democratic one. The USA is a republic, and a democratic one (relatively speaking).

    Secondly - the political system as practiced in the USA used to be based on the constitution - "of the people, by the people, and for the people"

    You seem to be implying that the phrase "of the people" comes from the constitution. It does not. It comes from the Gettysburg address. However, it does reflect the spirit of the constitution, which is democratic.

    but it's been perverted to "of the big business and banks, ..." and it's "people" are just tax paying cattle.

    Are you sure that's a perversion? I would say it was inherent in the system. Representative democracy inevitably gives power to highly organized, well-funded, and well-connected groups of demagogues. The ordinary citizen only gets to choose between demagogues among these groups. Many people think that's a good thing, as direct democracy would, in their opinion, lead to less competent government.

  • 0

    Bholder

    "There can be no real freedom or democracy until the men who do the work in a business also control its management." p26

    B. Russell - Political Ideals 1917

  • 0

    TheRat

    In Florida, where I am an absentee voter, we have realized that if we want change, we have to make constitutional admendments to get it as the politicians are too corrupt and too indebted to their corporations. Interesting to see that on the last ballot (for November) I saw admendments about class size and development. Only way to go.

  • 0

    Adamwesti

    In my opinion there has been drastic changes made during my life time and I believe I will never have the freedom I did back in the 40s & 50s.I believe the problem lies between activists & Politicians. I'm of the opinion that if Activist doesn't like it, no one else should either, and of course activist donate lots of money to politicians to make the laws. There are too many laws that affects individual rights and it appears these laws are made to induce govt revenues. We have over two million people incarcerated and many have never committed violent crimes. The best form of govt is when leaders of a nation believe individual freedom is of the utmost importance.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in Poll

View all

View all