Is Democracy on the Decline?

[sukeban]

INTRO:

 

Western democracy seems to be in a precarious position of late.

 

Somewhat discredited after its failure to anticipate or respond to the financial crisis of 2008, it has also presided over three decades of highly uneven economic growth, decades that have seen the richest Westerners accumulate wealth beyond imagination while the rest have seemingly fallen behind. What's more, other countries and other governing systems appear to be doing better. China, via its authoritarian capitalism, has raised hundreds of millions out of poverty, presiding over the fastest economic development in human history (with the second fastest being the communist USSR). Russia, awash in cash derived from natural resources, has recovered its shattered pride at the same time that it has largely abandoned liberal democracy, transitioning to a "managed democracy" that is but a pleasant facade for its return to traditional autocracy. Other nations, such as Singapore, South Korea (under its dictatorship), and Vietnam have achieved rapid economic development whilst being ostentatiously undemocratic. The Central Asian states and much of Eastern Europe, too, have experienced a marked shift back toward autocracy, with states such as the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus emulating the autocracy emanating from their neighboring Russia.

 

In contrast to the optimism espoused twenty years ago, I think it is fair to say that liberal democracy has not proved to be the final station of human political development that many Westerners, perhaps naively, believed that it would be. Even in democracy's historical cradle, the Americas and, especially, Europe, democracy is beginning to wear rough around the edges. In crisis-wracked Greece, the fascistic Golden Dawn is on the rise, and in equally insecure Hungary, the xenophobic Fidesz party has managed to capture control of the government. Far Right parties (and, less obviously, Far Right political views) continue to gain traction in stable nations like the UK, France, Switzerland, Denmark, and Poland. Mounting economic frustration, coupled with an ever-increasing detachment (or, more bluntly, "corruption") between governing elites and their citizenry has, in many states, led to a corrosive political admixture. In the United States, distrust in government and its democratic institutions has never been higher... at the same time that undemocratic institutions such as the police and the military continue to soar in popularity. And in some states, the under-performing economy exacerbates preexisting conflicts between native citizens and recent immigrants, supplying Far Right groups with easy targets for their xenophobic propaganda.

 

DEBATE:

 

So what do you think? Is democracy the birthright of all nations, the final evolutionary form of politics? Is democracy better at achieving certain outcomes but not others? Is an ineffectual democracy preferable to an decisive autocracy, like Singapore, that largely respects Western definitions of human rights even as it denies many civil liberties? What do you think the future holds for your state? What do you think the future holds for Far Right groups like the Golden Dawn or Fidesz, especially if the economy continues to perform badly? Are Westerners really invulnerable to an authoritarian relapse, even when confronted with dire economic and social crises? What is the best way to combat Far Right groups attempting to promote authoritarianism? Given the complex, technical nature of the world today (unlike in Montesquieu, Jefferson, or Voltaire's day), is government by untrained amateurs even desirable??

Edited September 18, 2013 by sukeban

[WarRatsG]

Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all others that have been tried."

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with having one leader, nor is there anything inherently wrong with having several leaders, or even none at all. I would say the problem lies with the leaders themselves. Consider Rome - it had a successful democracy for a long time, yet its Golden age is considered to be during the reign of the first emperor, Augustus Caesar. It also had some truly horrific emperors too. Problems are introduced when leadership has not been earned, ie royal families passing power down the family tree. It defies logic to give preference to a surname rather than a skill set. This is why democracy tends to do better, or at least serve as damage limitation, since democratic elections allow us the people to remove leaders if need be. Or at least they should, theoretically.

 

As far as political evolution goes, it can be said with a fair amount of certainty that it invariably starts with anarchy. As for where it ends, that's impossible to tell. Many times in the past (and arguably with Obama now) democratic principles have been chipped away until pretty much all power lies with one person. Many times in the past an autocracy has been limited and power shared out. It seems to cycle that way - just look at Russia starting from Tsar Nicholas II.

 

Long story short, it doesn't matter how many people share power, whether they are untrained, Right or Left Wing, or much else really. Most variants have been at least partially successful at one time or place. If the people they lead do not require repression to handle and are generally content, then what's the difference?

[Harbringe]

This speaks directly to the question is democracy in decline but explores in a wholistic manner the conditions that are facing us in this time .It may appear to be focused on economics but its the economics that underlie our liberal democracy and if one goes so too does the other. Its a bit long but utterly brilliant .

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2013 by Harbringe

[HeyYou]

Don't know about democracy, but, the US is certainly in decline. Our democratically elected government doesn't seem to be overly concerned about its people, or their opinions, or what they think this country should be doing, or, not doing, as the case may be. No here wants an attack on Syria, except... our government....

 

It has gotten to the point that the average citzen has zero control over the government. Our vote is meaningless, as we only get the choice of which candidate some 'higher power' (corporations) present to us. The campaign slogans/promises that our 'leaders' run on are immediately forgotten right after the final vote count is in. The folks in DC care only about themselves, lining their own pockets, and those of their cronies. What is 'best' for america is never even considered. Whatever makes them the most money, right NOW, is the most important.

 

We are indeed in decline, and we are headed for a fall.

[sukeban]

@Rats

 

As someone who is increasingly agnostic about our form of government, I largely agree with you, in particular with your point about leadership being earned rather than inherited. In the US, one need only look at the presumptive presidential candidates to see how American democracy has been largely conflated with a monarchic or oligarchic/boyar system, with the same family names (especially Clinton, Bush, Kennedy) tending to appear over and over again, regardless of qualification.

 

I do wonder about the feasibility of democracy going forward, however, as the nature of government becomes more technical rather than philosophical or moral/intellectual. One can already see this in the climate change debate or with topics like economics or healthcare; by all rights, those in government (overwhelmingly lawyers) have no business making policy on issues that they do not fundamentally understand, yet that is precisely how business is conducted, often to the detriment of us all. With more technological progress being made each and every day, it is impossible to imagine that 100 Senators and 435 House members will be able to deliver enlightened and scientifically reasonable public policy, even if they increase their legislative staffs. Perhaps taking certain, scientifically intensive areas of policy off the table for democratic debate would be advisable in the future; I, for one, would be pleased to cede control over complex ideas to actual experts in those fields rather than continue to allow amateurs and ideologues to lead us in circles (ex: Republicans continuing to advance supply-side economics despite its "benefits" being completely debunked by actual economists).

 

@HeyYou

 

Yes, and what happens to our system of government during that "fall" I wonder? If our country does implode, another democracy will 100% not rise in its place, rather, it will be some form of autocracy or else a partition into many independent states, each with their own likely autocracy. Our democracy is in the doghouse because it categorically cannot solve problems and it is quite obviously corrupt; it would be nice if a movement could peacefully oust career insiders, but I am not particularly sanguine about the prospects of that happening. Rejuvenating our government requires a vast, society-wide commitment--particularly to education--but I don't think, given how much of a struggle daily life is for enough people already, that we are really up to that task.

[Nintii]

Democracy - one man one vote - is definitely here to stay, even some of the worst nations practice

this form of electing a new government.

Democracy is essentially mobocracy.

In a multicultural setting Democracy is no different than a dictatorship.

Take Africa for instance, in a nation that has more than one "tribe" the largest one wins and dominates

the rest, that is simply how it goes, check your history books.

 

The US and Europe, and many of it's former European colonies don't really have the "African problem"

and so it's a case of "policies" that that the various parties would use to attract voters, so it works in that

context.

 

However, as various ethnic groups increase in number in both the US and Europe they will begin to

see their politics tip towards racially based political platforms.

And as the numbers grow so to will the divide in those nations.

 

Europe is already fast feeling the effect of "foreigners" in their nations and though their Democratic politics

will remain their politics will become more Socialistic in nature.

[Lisnpuppy]

I usually leave quotes from my Founding Fathers in these things but a late scientist summed this up best.

 

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”~Issac Asimov

 

You can replace "United States" with any western democratic country. The issues isn't democracy or the current type of government in many western countries. This issue is the unwillingness of the populace to become intelligent about the political and social issues that surround us. The unwillingness to be involved in the democratic process (which is not raging on the internet about your rights.) But rather to be an informed and active citizen in government. I don't care how much money someone has or how much the press likes to slant things to one way or another. Information and education is available once people decide they no longer wish to be sheep.

 

We say that democracy is mob rule...and yet in most western countries the voting rate is miniscule. I would be willing to go with that were there a 90% voter registration and a 90% vote turnout. There is not. It isn't even close. How can we say our vote is meaningless when most don't even vote. That the registered voters is a horrible portion of those eligible. I am not saying it is easy but it can be done. We vote the same people in EVERY TIME. I hardly never see a congressman go out after the first term. People vote name recognition alone. In my state the people voted back into office a governor that had been charged with a crime. Amazing.

 

Only until people are willing to decide that being educated, being involved and taking responsibility will things change.

[Aonghus]

I would like to make a small, but important, distinction. The US was set up not as a Democracy but as a Republic. In fact, at the time of the founding, democracy was a synonym for anarchy. Yes, we choose our representatives via a democratic manner, but their actions are (at least in theory,) constrained by the Constitution and the rule of law.

 

I can remember when the talk of the decline of the West (and our particular form of Government) was last in vogue. I was a child in the 70s, but this sort of talk was rampant then. The buzz was that 200 years was a good run, but America was headed for the drain, and we'd all end up working for Japan Inc. before too much longer. Before that, I have read that a similar view was prevalent in the 30s, and the rising tide of socialism (including fascism,) would sweep away the democratic experiment.

 

I do agree with Lisnpuppy that the greatest threat to the US is an ignorant electorate. I can however, provide a concrete example of at least one district (mine) where a congressman got bounced after a single term. Please understand that I live in rural Appalacia, and my district is not particularly wealthy, nor is an advanced education a common commodity. During the 2008 elections, the long-time Republican incumbent was defeated. (He richly deserved it, having apparently died in office several years before, but nobody bothered to inform him. If the local Democrats had bothered to run anybody who wasn't slightly to the left of Karl Marx, it would have happened years before.) During the campaign, accusations that the new incumbent was a carpet-bagger (having only recently returned to the region after almost two decades living and working in NYC,) a charge he hotly denied.

 

On getting into office, he proceeded to vote party-line 98% of the time, often over the vehement objections of the residents of the district. Come the 2010 elections he was summarily shown the door. His replacement has made it a point to regularly meet with those of us in his district, and I have yet to see a local town hall meeting of his that was not standing room only or worse. The unspoken agreement is that as long as he keeps receiving input for the voters of his district, and providing explanations of why he votes against the popular will, we will keep sending him back to congress.

 

So rather than lament low citizen participation in elections, the more productive path is to take an active part in the political process. Realize that the opinion you hold may not be in-line with what the other voters in your district believe, and if they don't agree with you they may be disagreeing with you rather than not listening to you.

[colourwheel]

Just yesterday, I saw on the local news a story about a parent who complained about their child going on a school field trip to visit a Muslim moss. Their child was attending a christian school. The complaint was based on their perception of having their child being exposed to a religious faith that was not their own. The field trip was meant to be an educational field trip not a religious one.

 

We live in a time when people fear education and wonder why the American electorate is so unintellectual.

 

Democracy is not in a decline in America, it never has been. The decline is in our education system. We live in an age where people fear science, deny logic, and ignore opinions they do not agree with.

Edited September 19, 2013 by colourwheel

[OpheliaNeoma]

Democracy is not in a decline in America, it never has been. The decline is in our education system. We live in an age where people fear science, deny logic, and ignore opinions they do not agree with.

 

Not just ignore other opinions - people like to call out and absolutely condemn anything that's even slightly different from their own.