Democracy

[Ezra Smack]

Below is a great explaination of democracy. We hear this word bantied about by the gime gimes and the politicians who pander to them. But most Americans could not tell you the difference between a Constititional Republic (what the US was) and a Democracy (what the US is becoming)
__________________________________________________ __

http://wiki.freetalklive.com/Category:Issues

Although Democracy has the same name as a political system practiced in ancient Greece, it should not be confused with that system that was characterized by active participation in public affairs by one small segment of society, and overt slavery by the rest. The modern conversion of nations to Democracy was a reaction to beliefs commonly held at the time of America's founding. At that time, and also in European monarchies, the mass of the population had a tendency to react to corruption and incompetence in the nation's leaders by exercising their Second Amendment rights (or perhaps a guillotine) to replace that leadership. Such practices tended to be adverse to the health of public officials, and motivated the nation's leaders to cause a forced conversion to Democracy. Like all great religions, Democracy is an opiate of the masses, and channels potentially violent reactions to public corruption into the socially harmless practice of voting, whereby the adherent achieves the mental satisfaction of addressing problems in the nation's leadership and public policy without actually having to harm or even replace any public officials or administrative bureaucrats.

Adherents of Democracy are encouraged to express a public allegiance to one of the two major sects, or "parties." These sects have different names in different countries. In America, for example, the names of these two sects are the "Democratic Party" and the "Republican Party." Although these sects preach different dogmas (the Republicans sanctioning violence and the Democrats sex), the actual practice of Democracy is nearly identical for members of both sects. The adherent's choice of sect is largely family-based and hereditary. Democracy seeks to bring all members of society into its practice, and to this end the leaders of the religion permit a number of smaller sects to exist that appeal to more obscure segments, including one called the Libertarian Party, which preaches dogmas that are closely related to the political philosophy of the same name. Apparently its purpose is to redirect the otherwise potentially dangerous energies of those who identify with that political world-view into the safely inert practice of voting.

The ironic fact of Democracy is that it is asserted that by practicing this religion, the faithful can influence public affairs, whereas in operation it achieves no such end. This can easily be seen by the fact that people who have a professional need to shape public policy utilize other methods, primarily the hiring of lobbyists. The mere existence of lobbying as a profession should be enough to convince anyone of the reality that voting does not have the effect it is supposed to have, but adherents of Democracy are no different from those of other religions in their steadfast if irrational faith in their religion's teachings.

[edit]Types of Democracy
Essentially, there are two main types of democracy. Direct democracy involves electorates making decisions for themselves, without any elected representatives. This form is similar to what existed in ancient Greece. No real direct democracies exist in the world today, as such. The advantages of this system are that it better suits smaller populations. It would be logistically difficult for a large population to employ direct democracy, since you would have to enable millions of people to vote on every issue. Direct democracy also can lead to majoritarianism, in which all decisions are subject to 51% of public opinion. Evidently, this characterises the classic "tyranny of the majority", an ideal devised by Plato in opposition to democracy.

The second type of democracy is representative democracy. In this system, electorates vote for politicians who act on the behalf of the people. In contrast to a direct democracy, this system better suits larger populations, since people can be freer to live their lives without having to vote on every conceivable issue. In the USA, this system is called a republic, since the "tyranny of the majority" is lessened via a constitution outlining the rights of the citizen vis-a-vis the government. Liberal democracy is the most common form of representative democracy in the world today. Liberal democracy is characterised by pluralism of political opinion, periodic elections in which different political viewpoints can achieve power and the upholding of peoples' rights. The first true liberal democracies, in the modern sense, where the USA and the United Kingdom.

[edit]Advantages
The greatest advantage of the democratic system is that it provides for changes of government without violence. Instead of power transferring to the group with the greatest number of soldiers prepared to fight and die for a cause we submit to the ideal that the number of votes will suffice in substitute. Of course this much better reflected the reality of the situation before weapons of mass destruction and the frailty of a integrated interdependent society reliant on its infrastructure and the threat of terrorism tipped the balance of numbers of feet on the ground towards those with the advantages of money, determination, or blinding ideology.

The obvious advantage of democracy is that the majority of people living under a democratically elected government are happy with that government or at least participated in its rise to power and therefore they must shoulder part of the blame for its failings.

Another advantage is that typically there is an election term, which means that a government can only do so much damage before the opposition get a chance to undo it.

Representative democracies are very efficient at making new law. By electing a representative that represents a party, that represents a basket of ideas, some of which you like some of which you do not, and by holding elections only every so many years, we restrict our choices, and true democracy for the sake of efficiency.

A more perfect democracy is in theory more possible in our current era as technology in communications has now developed where referendum is a cheaper faster and more realistic option if it truly is the democratic ideal that we wish to pursue.

[edit]Disadvantages
At its worst, unchecked it is mob rule. It is a system that delivers power to the greatest number over the minorities in a community and entrusts the majority to care for those minorities even though it is likely counter to their interest to do so. This is an expectation that works against human nature and is therefore an unreasonable expectation. This is a state that is sometimes termed the "tyranny of the majority" and it was feared that democracy would replace the tyranny of the ruling class with this new tyranny that would be even less ruely. This was a fear that was well and widely held in the formation of some of our oldest democracies and most countries put in place mechanisms to bridal unchecked power of the majority over the minority. This is the basis of the constitution in the USA, separate houses, presidential veto power, and the courts, In the UK it is the purpose of the house of lords in the UK.

It is healthy for us to look at the history of the discussion generated by the proposition of the formation of our democracies and the ultimate structure that resulted from those discussions so that we understand the built in protections of our systems and why they exist. These systems are under threat when we blindly pursue democracy with religious zeal blindly to the weaknesses of democracy. We should fully understand the weaknesses of the democratic system in order to mitigate the disadvantages whilst leveraging the advantages. This learning should also be passed on to the new democracies that are being formed in the world, rather than passing off democracies as a panacea for political stability and just rule.

Mob rule makes it possible for governments to enact laws that exempt the government from laws that the population must follow. For example forcing you to buy services from them that you might not even need (through taxation), such as health if you have insurance, and education if you do not have children. They also allow discriminatory pricing based on your wealth, sex, marital status, location, age, etc.

Other disadvantages are the necessity to develop policies to win a majority not to do what is right or needed. In effect all public policy becomes a compromise that is often so befuddled by the time it has been negotiated to the middle ground it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended or worse it does harm.

Democracy makes taking necessary but difficult decisions politically dangerous even when they are obviously required for the survival of the whole system. Just look at Frances problem when it mentions labor reform of the smallest kind. This could be likened to the "tragedy of the commons" where the majority votes for their own wealth and well being until the whole system under its own demands of itself dies.

Democracies easily become kleptocracies, where the majority tax the whole community but give it back in services and benefits disproportionately to their own constituency to buy their hold on power with money taken from their minority opposition.

Democracies make too many rules. Democratic governments are always dreaming up new ways of currying favor with their electorates and feel they need to be actively doing something to help their constituency. The result is that democracies have hundreds of elected officials, thousands of their aids, and countless lobbyists dreaming up new ways that they can further the interests of their constituency, and thereby help themselves. As a result our law books and regulations get fatter and fatter. When do we reach the point that ignorance is an excuse for not complying with the law? It could be argued that the US tax code crossed that threshold years ago.