Is Democracy on the Decline?

[Nintii]

@ Aonghus ... True, the United States does have the added advantage of being a Republic with a Constitution

yet the problem enters when the government is pushed into a corner and is unable to govern due to the fact that

citizens have so much power.

I DO NOT want to turn this into a gun debate (that has been thrashed over a dozen times now on Nexus), but as

an example ... if the activities of the citizens with firearms had taken place in another Democracy in any Western

government there would have been a major crackdown on gun ownership and laws.

 

In short, the US is a Democracy that is held to ransom by it's very own people.

 

On the other hand Democracy can go over the edge, take Italy for example, it has 6 major political parties

and dozens of smaller ones.

The people are so polarized that no one party has a majority, how can this be good for any nation ?

 

The way I see it, there is no perfect political system anywhere in the world and I doubt there will ever be one.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Nintii

[sukeban]

@Linspuppy

 

I totally agree with you re: education, though I also believe that we have many institutional inefficiencies, outdated in terms of the modern age, that hinder the effective functioning of our government.

 

@Aonghus

 

The only serious threat to our democracy occurred, as you say, during the 1930s, but I think that the situation is similar (or on a trajectory to become similar) to today. The key difference between the 1930s and today is that the government was able to rise to the challenge of the moment, with FDR and the Democrats fundamentally rewriting the social contract between Americans and their government, making it more equitable after the ridiculous excess and iniquity of the preceding era. Do you see that happening this time around, because I certainly don't.

 

THIS is the looming threat to our democracy, that, with all the corruption, narcissism, and partisan dickering, it fiddles whilst our metaphorical Rome burns. If our democratic system of government cannot (or will not) rise to the challenge of the moment, something or someone else will (or, more likely, will promise to...). Fascist groups like the Golden Dawn promise clean government and an end to the depredations of the capitalist class, ideas that are resoundingly popular across the political spectrum. Couple that with a preoccupation with "Real Citizens" versus ethnic/social outsiders and you have the classic fascist program: clean, effective government for the native-born and an effort to exclude or oust the rest. Hmm... I wonder where I've seen slogans advocating that before....*

 

I think that the "social justice" angle of fascism often gets left out of the discussion, as people tend to focus solely on its displays of xenophobia and militarism. I think, however, that this component is actually the most critical, as it (and the economic malaise/endemic corruption that it is intended to combat) is the beating heart of the fascist program. Without economic distress and obvious exploitation by economic/political elites, the "solutions" of fascism have all but zero appeal outside of hardcore racist or nationalist circles; but, with those conditions in place, frustrated citizens are drawn to their economic program, unenthusiastically perhaps joining company with its less savory elements. Certainly, nobody would argue that all/most Germans believed in the Nazi xenophobic claptrap; rather, the party offered practical solutions to practical problems and, most importantly, improved upon the horrors of the Weimar economy. Somewhat similar to the continued toleration of official "communism" in China, ordinary people will put up with some odd government behavior so long as the economic engine hums.

 

In any case, history teaches us that the middle class is the decisive class in terms of political change. Right now, with the middle class under duress and shrinking, the conditions are becoming far more favorable for such a change (or, more hopefully, a fundamental reform) to take place.

 

*Obviously, these don't represent the majority of the Tea Party but they are indicative of a growing sentiment within the country.

Edited September 19, 2013 by sukeban

[HeyYou]

@ Aonghus ... True, the United States does have the added advantage of being a Republic with a Constitution

yet the problem enters when the government is pushed into a corner and is unable to govern due to the fact that

citizens have so much power.

I DO NOT want to turn this into a gun debate (that has been thrashed over a dozen times now on Nexus), but as

an example ... if the activities of the citizens with firearms had taken place in another Democracy in any Western

government there would have been a major crackdown on gun ownership and laws.

 

In short, the US is a Democracy that is held to ransom by it's very own people.

 

On the other hand Democracy can go over the edge, take Italy for example, it has 6 major political parties

and dozens of smaller ones.

The people are so polarized that no one party has a majority, how can this be good for any nation ?

 

The way I see it, there is no perfect political system anywhere in the world and I doubt there will ever be one.

Where did you ever get the idea that the citizens in the US have any power at all? We get a vote. That's it. We don't get to choose who runs. We get the choices of the lesser of several evils. Not to mention, that universally, once in office, our representatives, that are supposed to represent the people that elected them..... vote how their campaign contributors tell them too. The average american's vote is pretty much worthless.

[colourwheel]

@HeyYou

 

This is how it has always been in America, the citizens in the US have no power but the voting power. Just because the citizens in your opinion have a worthless vote, not really much has changed since the day our country began. If it has always been this way then there is actually no decline of democracy, democracy has remained pretty much the same.

 

The only thing that has changed in my opinion is the country has less of a well informed electorate, unintellectual constituencies, and representatives getting away duping their voters.

 

Just imagine if you had a better educated country...

Edited September 19, 2013 by colourwheel

[MajKrAzAm]

I don’t believe in democracy, but I’m not an anti-democrat. I’m definitely not capable of discrediting democracy in its entirety, especially in a forum post. All I can add is that there are several overlooked anomalies with democracy that emerge many times over history and within our political process. Together these anomalies point to some non-random fundamental dysfunction with democracy itself. I’d imagine most people here support democracy. They were probably raised in democratic countries. They were never reasoned into supporting democracy. Imagine telling a Catholic in the 15th Century that Christianity should free itself of Rome. It would probably seem insane. To be a Catholic, you have to have faith. To support democracy, you have to have trust, to trust that your worldview accurately reflects the real world.

 

The problem with discussing democracy in the West is the emotions and features people associate with democracy as an abstract form. People have an ideal of democracy what represents, and assume that to be what it is in reality. Most individuals probably associate democracy with peace, freedom, progress and prosperity. Whereas I would associate democracy with war, tyranny, destruction and poverty. The conventional view of democracy is a misperception. And this misperception has outcompeted the reality of what democracy truly is.

 

Democracy means that popular opinion influences the government. The elites in our society (the intellectuals and the mainstream media) guide popular opinion. So who controls the state? We can see in our society that public opinion is a reflection of the attitudes of the elite, and not of the average individual. The consensus at Harvard now, will become mainstream public opinion in 50 years. So democracy is indistinguishable from oligarchy. Describing democracy as rule by elites is a better description of reality. But the average person is prevented from seeing this because of the emotions and features they have been taught to associate with democracy as an ideal, and not the reality.

 

A lot of people say that way to remedy these problems with an unaccountable elite is with democracy. In other words, democracy would create a permanent source of friction within a country with the elites and majority, and between majority groups as well. Most people hate politics, they have an aversion to this type of poltical friction. But I would suggest that every time someone attacks “partisanship” in politics, or pleads for “bi-partisanship” they are expressing a fear and hatred of democracy. Politics is democracy. No one thinks that the failures of democracy can be attributed to Democracy. Instead you read convoluted differentiation between successful democracies. You hear this bullcrap when people try and argue why democracy hasn’t worked out in Iraq. Multiple reasons are given why democracy cannot work in one country, e.g. they have a tribal culture, low iq, poverty, war, brutalized by colonialism, etc etc. But you never hear democracy itself questioned.

[HeyYou]

@HeyYou

 

This is how it has always been in America, the citizens in the US have no power but the voting power. Just because the citizens in your opinion have a worthless vote, not really much has changed since the day our country began. If it has always been this way then there is actually no decline of democracy, democracy has remained pretty much the same.

 

The only thing that has changed in my opinion is the country has less of a well informed electorate, unintellectual constituencies, and representatives getting away duping their voters.

 

Just imagine if you had a better educated country...

What we have today, bears very little resemblence to what the founding fathers had in mind. Our representatives then were part time. They didn't maintain a residence in the captial. (wherever it happened to be.) It wasn't their only job either, most had business, or farms, or plantations. No, the government we have today, is nothing at all like what we had originally.

[Hardwaremaster]

I think before you can say that whats declining, you need to accurately define what it is first.

I think we'll find, that there is not much difference here between these, so what am I to assume about a Democracy. That it is somehow a composite of one or more schematics, but which ones are were to guess is the correct one, considering the framework that most people acknowledge as the reportedly appropriate definition of Democracy.

 

To display an example, the Roman Empire was in actually all the above, that might seem contradictory but allow me to explain. Emperor Constantine was the sovereign of the Roman Empire, and at the same time held the title Pontifex Maximus, and the title Caesar, which means he was the High Priest and the Emperor, at the same time. Also Rome had a Parliamentary that was in the format of a Republic, with representatives of the people that could vote depending on your social status. This is were it gets interesting however; when Rome started, it was a Republic, then became a Democracy, and finally a Dictatorship. However it never changed its fundamental foundation principles, what I mean by that is, it still had, up until its collapse a senate that supposedly represented the people. Here is were is gets technical though, regardless of having a functioning senate, the Emperor had all the power, he could completely disregard the senate if he so desired. The Roman Empire all so had only one political party, with many wealthy families competing between themselves for prestige and power that their stations authorized, which makes it resemble a Monarchy and a Plutocracy to a certain degree. That's without even mentioning the spending the Roman Empire did on the public without absolutely owning businesses. Which is an amalgamation of socialism, capitalism, and communism with the way they operated their own economy, if we were to do it in modern politics.

 

Now with all that established, this is why governments are a paradox, because you can have a republic that can be a dictatorship, which at the same time, have people who think they are free. I believe if you look thoroughly through out human history, you can begin to see a repeating pattern, with systems of governance being personally twisted.

 

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[EnaiSiaion]

Democracy doesn't work simply because a large percentage of the political effort goes towards impeding the opposition instead of making things happen. A country like China, if they want a highway, they build a highway. Here, they want a highway, SOMEONE is going to complain and block the whole project, or else a political competitor will discredit the reasons for one (or the politician behind it), etc.

 

That and democracy automatically leads to a ballooning state because every politician knows they can buy votes with the money of those who don't vote for them.

[Nintii]

 

Where did you ever get the idea that the citizens in the US have any power at all? We get a vote. That's it. We don't get to choose who runs. We get the choices of the lesser of several evils. Not to mention, that universally, once in office, our representatives, that are supposed to represent the people that elected them..... vote how their campaign contributors tell them too. The average american's vote is pretty much worthless.

 

 

Yes that might be true and I agree on all your points, but let me clarify where i'm coming from.

I'm, talking in the context of the power of the US citizen and their influence as individuals.

 

If you check the long list of "The United States vs ................. ", you will discover the countless times that

the average citizen (voter) has declared rulings from the Supreme Court and Congress to be

Unconstitutional.

Hence my remark that the government was going one way with it's Laws and regulations and the citizen

successfully impeded or turned the "going" policy or law another way.

This is why I stated that "the US is being held to ransom by it's own people", because the average

citizen has the power to change existing Laws of governance.

 

One such instance is the case of the United States vs Lopez.

 

"United States v. Lopez: The Background

The United States v. Lopez case was the first United States Supreme Court case since the early

1930’s to create laws that limit Congress’s power. The United States v. Lopez case begins with a

man named Alfonzo Lopez. Mr. Lopez was a High School Senior in San Antonio, Texas. On March

10th of 1992, Lopez carried a concealed handgun into school. The gun was loaded and Lopez had

five backup rounds of ammunition tucked away in his jeans. When Lopez was confronted by police

and school officials, he admitted to carrying the gun. The very next day, Alfonzo Lopez was charged

with violating federal laws which banned guns on all school properties in the United States. The law

Alfonzo Lopez was accused of violating was called the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990.

 

Alfonzo Lopez appealed his arrest by stating that the creation of the law was unconstitutional.

Lopez claimed that the laws went beyond the power of the United States Congress; he believed

that Congress was not allowed to create laws that essentially control the public school district.

Lopez’s first defense failed; the court ruled that Congress possessed the authority to regulate

activities that affected schools throughout the United States.

Alfonzo Lopez was convicted for carrying a weapon on school grounds. He appealed the initial

court decision and brought his case to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals. Lopez again claimed that the

Commerce Clause was a direct violation of the Constitution to the United States. The Fifth Circuit

overturned the original conviction by stating the charges and the law itself was beyond the power

of Congress. In response to this decision, the United States government then appealed to the

Supreme Court. The Government wanted the commerce laws to remain in effect.

 

United States v. Lopez: The Trial

In the Supreme Court Case, United States v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s

argument was that the possession of a firearm on or within an educational facility would likely

lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the condition of the school and the

wellbeing of the population. Because of this, the government believed that the commerce

clause should be upheld and practiced.

In United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the

Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the United States Supreme Court stated that

Congress has the broad power to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited

and did not extend to the areas of the Lopez case. United States v. Lopez took place on

November 8th, 1994. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alfonzo Lopez on

April 26th of 1995."

Even though Lopez won his case and the government theirs to a certain extent their

powers to rule unfettered were limited.

Note that this was done by an individual and not a group.

Take Vietnam for instance the ending of the war there was largely due the protestations of the people

and not the "wise" decision of the government or any of the established political parties ... people power.

Why do you think the oppressive regimes normally try to speak to the American public rather than

the American government ... because of past experience, namely that by changing sentiment

of the people the people will sway the politicians.

[Lisnpuppy]

I have to disagree with you Nin. I get what you are trying to say but the individual filing is not MAKING policy or even preventing policy and laws from being made. They are taking part in the process of the checks and balances written into the Constitution. In this case it is not protection of individual rights but States Rights.

 

Though it may have limited Congresses power but as we have seen Congress often makes laws and decisions that are against that of the public and of the States. This instance is one of a long, LONG line of the fight between the powers of the Federal Government and the powers of the States. Mr. Lopez as an individual filed and was in some way effected by the law but he really is probably the least important thing here. It isn't even a gun control case. It was 100% about the rights of The States to create policy and to protect their powers for making policy.

 

Though Mr. Lopez may have used this to try to get out of trouble if it had not had this broader impact the court might have never heard the case at all. It is not dissimilar from the recent DOMA decisions. It at its heart was not a gay rights question. It was more a question of the Federal Government being able to ignore the laws in a State which allowed people to marry and then not provide them benefits under the Federal Government coverage as they would have if they were in a traditional marriage. It was not filed based on individual liberties but the States' rights to make policy regarding marriage and have that be legal and recognized by the Federal Government.