When political leaders explain the reasons for going to war they invariably make the point that the troops will be fighting to defend or to impose democracy. Tony Blair and George Bush are just the latest in using this argument. However, are countries like Britain and the United States good examples of functioning democracies?
My dictionary defines a democracy as “a government in which the supreme power is exercised by the people directly or indirectly through a system of representation involving free elections… the absence of class distinctions or privileges”.
It is true that both the United States and Britain both regularly hold free elections. However, I would argue that in both cases the people in Parliament/Congress do not accurately represent the political opinions of the electorate. The main reason for this is that both countries employ the “first past the post” system. The result is that in both countries a two party system has developed. This is a major problem in the United States as both parties share a very similar political philosophy. Since the emergence of Tony Blair and the election of his New Labour government, Britain has developed a similar problem. The philosophy of New Labour and the Conservative Party is now the same. It is true that this philosophy is also shared by the majority of the population. However, the system makes it virtually impossible for those who hold different views, to gain representation in the House of Commons. Understandably, this has resulted in large numbers of people holding views in conflict with the dominant ideology, refusing to vote in elections.
It has often been argued that the “first past the post” is a flawed system but has the merit of keeping “extremist political parties” out of power. Even if this was true (and I don’t believe it is – see link to article below) this viewpoint is completely undemocratic. It shows that the so called “democratic system” is being manipulated in order to deny a proportion of the population representation in Parliament.
Burnley Could Fall to the BNP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics...1126820,00.html
Do other people share my concerns? I am especially interested in hearing from people from other countries. Do you think your system is more democratic that that of Britain and the United States? Is proportional representation a better system than the first past the post system? What about those emerging democracies in Eastern Europe? What system of electing politicians are you adopting?
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
Full Version: Do we live in a democracy?
I think the question posted refers to two problems:
are the political systems we live in (Germany in my case) democracies
how democratic/good/sensible is the electoral system.
Since 1949 Germany has a complicated electoral system combining the first-past-the psot-principle and elements of proportional representation, which means that we have two votes: one cast for a candidate and a second one (the more important one) for a party. The candidates who poll the majority of votes in their constituencies directly move into the Bundestag but the number of seats alloted to the parties is based on the votes cast for the parties. It is a system which since now has not led to a two-party system but which has nearly always led to coalition governments. So you can argue that more opinions and segments of the people are represented not only in parliament but also in our governments.
What we notice at the moment is that even though we have a coalition of two parties (Social Democrats and the Greens) and two/three opposition parties (the Conservatives and the Liberals) the two dominant parties are the SPD and the CDU. When it comes to reforming the German welfare state the programmes if these two parties are very similar. The process Germany is going through at the moment means that all parts of society have to give up some of their privileges, income etc. in order to maintain the core ideals and structures of our welfare system. Many people are frustrated and they see no differences between the parties - no real political alternatives. One result is that the turnout of elections has been decreasing for some years.
This frustration, political apathy is very dangerous. A democracy does not only need people but citizens who are engaged in politics in various ways on different levels of our social and political life.
I still think that we live in a democratic system but that we have to find ways encourage people to use the means of participation which exist (from writing letters, signing petitions to organising demonstraions, joining a party or union) and think of new ways of including people in political decisions.
The history of the Republic of Weimar has made German cautious of referendums, but in some German states (Länder) the instrument of referundumg has been reintroduced when it comes to decision making on a local or regional level. The results seem to be promising.
The task teachers have is to show students how decisions can be influenced, how they can exert their rights and the best way to do this is to make them practise democracy in school.
are the political systems we live in (Germany in my case) democracies
how democratic/good/sensible is the electoral system.
Since 1949 Germany has a complicated electoral system combining the first-past-the psot-principle and elements of proportional representation, which means that we have two votes: one cast for a candidate and a second one (the more important one) for a party. The candidates who poll the majority of votes in their constituencies directly move into the Bundestag but the number of seats alloted to the parties is based on the votes cast for the parties. It is a system which since now has not led to a two-party system but which has nearly always led to coalition governments. So you can argue that more opinions and segments of the people are represented not only in parliament but also in our governments.
What we notice at the moment is that even though we have a coalition of two parties (Social Democrats and the Greens) and two/three opposition parties (the Conservatives and the Liberals) the two dominant parties are the SPD and the CDU. When it comes to reforming the German welfare state the programmes if these two parties are very similar. The process Germany is going through at the moment means that all parts of society have to give up some of their privileges, income etc. in order to maintain the core ideals and structures of our welfare system. Many people are frustrated and they see no differences between the parties - no real political alternatives. One result is that the turnout of elections has been decreasing for some years.
This frustration, political apathy is very dangerous. A democracy does not only need people but citizens who are engaged in politics in various ways on different levels of our social and political life.
I still think that we live in a democratic system but that we have to find ways encourage people to use the means of participation which exist (from writing letters, signing petitions to organising demonstraions, joining a party or union) and think of new ways of including people in political decisions.
The history of the Republic of Weimar has made German cautious of referendums, but in some German states (Länder) the instrument of referundumg has been reintroduced when it comes to decision making on a local or regional level. The results seem to be promising.
The task teachers have is to show students how decisions can be influenced, how they can exert their rights and the best way to do this is to make them practise democracy in school.
QUOTE
Is proportional representation a better system than the first past the post system?
Living in a country with that system I tend to answer it yes. However I have only little expierence with the other system. Our system is at first sight more democratic, almost all votes get some kind of representation. However it has it flaws to because so many parties votes they always have to govern by coalition. This means compromises are inevitable. So many people feel that they never get what they voted for and therefore stop voting all together. That is a far more serious development and I would like to know if other countries have these same problems.
I would like to say catagorically that neither Britain nor America are democracies. Both because we have no affective opposition, both countries having a choice between moniterist, capitalist parties, and that is not a choice. It puts me in mind of an advertisement that was current many years ago. A typical British landlady asking her tenant "How do you want your eggs? Fried or boiled?".
I Would also draw your attention to the 1974 general election. I was politically active at the time in as much as I was a trade union representative, and kept abreast of the political scene. Edward Heath, the leader of the conservative party at the time lost the election, but was invited by the queen to form a government. The fact that he could not form an alliance with the then liberal party meant that he could not hold a majority in parliament. The queen then had no option but to invite Harold Wilson to form a government. This shows us that ultimate power, admittedly within certain parameters, lies with an individual, not the electorate.
Just as a secondary thought, hopefully provoking further comments and opinions, I hold the view that the Native American Indian, as opposed to the generally accepted Ancient Greeks were the originators of and had the best democratic system in history. Most , if not all of the Indian Nations had a system of power, where a chief or medicine man held sway, under the auspices of a governing council of elders who held ultimate powers of decision making. And yet an individual member of a tribe had the option to ignore protocol, and do what he thought appropriate given individual circumstances. For example, it was perfectly acceptable for a brave in the throws of battle to leave the battlefield if he saw a deer running by and felt that the hunting of the said deer to feed his family was more important than to contribute to the fight. This action would not be questioned by his fellow braves, nor would he be considered unworthy. Real democratic decision making, retaining the rights of the individual.
I Would also draw your attention to the 1974 general election. I was politically active at the time in as much as I was a trade union representative, and kept abreast of the political scene. Edward Heath, the leader of the conservative party at the time lost the election, but was invited by the queen to form a government. The fact that he could not form an alliance with the then liberal party meant that he could not hold a majority in parliament. The queen then had no option but to invite Harold Wilson to form a government. This shows us that ultimate power, admittedly within certain parameters, lies with an individual, not the electorate.
Just as a secondary thought, hopefully provoking further comments and opinions, I hold the view that the Native American Indian, as opposed to the generally accepted Ancient Greeks were the originators of and had the best democratic system in history. Most , if not all of the Indian Nations had a system of power, where a chief or medicine man held sway, under the auspices of a governing council of elders who held ultimate powers of decision making. And yet an individual member of a tribe had the option to ignore protocol, and do what he thought appropriate given individual circumstances. For example, it was perfectly acceptable for a brave in the throws of battle to leave the battlefield if he saw a deer running by and felt that the hunting of the said deer to feed his family was more important than to contribute to the fight. This action would not be questioned by his fellow braves, nor would he be considered unworthy. Real democratic decision making, retaining the rights of the individual.
QUOTE
I would like to say catagorically that neither Britain nor America are democracies. (profhig 24th January)
I beg to differ even though I share some of your ideas concencerning the American and British electoral system and its effects. But when it comes to defining a democracy the electoral system and its shortcomings is only one aspect to consider. There other criteria which define and characterize a democracy like the right of free speech and press and I think we all agree that the media are an effective means of voicing and influencing public opinion. There is the right to form and/or join a party, union, grass-root movement etc.; the right to organise e.g. demonstrations etc.
Looking at the behaviour and attitude of the governments in and of Europe at the moment you can get the impression that after having been elected the Prime Ministers, Presidents, Bundeskanzler, MPs etc. do not care much about public opinion and cannot be controlled continually and effectively by the electorate.
The core of the problem is that we all live in representative/indirect demcocracies and that the only effective influence we seem to have is the ballot paper.
When Germany was reunited again in 1990 it was discussed if our constitution should be changed reinstating referenda and some other elements of direct democracy. The main argument of the supporters of more elements of direct democracy was that that would be a way to engage more people in the democratic process and to make decision-making more democratic. The opponents of the idea of referenda refered to the Weimar Republic and the negative experiences. Unfortunately the opponents won the day and the constitution was not changed.
I personally support the idea of more elements of direct democracy even on a national level (as I said in my previous posting the constitutions of some of the German Laender allow referenda on a local and regional level) because people then can have a more direct say in the running of the country. This also could have the positive effect that people are more interested and enganged in politics.
QUOTE
Do you think your system is more democratic that that of Britain and the United States? Is proportional representation a better system than the first past the post system? What about those emerging democracies in Eastern Europe? What system of electing politicians are you adopting?
In my view answering a so big question: Do we live in democracy? is a rather philosophical debate that probably will lead us to nowhere.
I'd rather opt for more concrete questions as those refered to electoral system. In Spain we have a sort of "corrected" proportional system that finally products two big parties (Partido Popular - Partido Socialista Obrero Español) and a series of smaller parties that ranks from former Communists (Izquierda Unida) to nationalist parties (Partido Nacionalista Vasco or Convergencia i Unió).
Is a proportional system better than the British first-past-the-post? I would say so, but, suddenly, Italian political system from 1945 to last decade came to my mind.
A very fractioned Parliament with a lot of parties whose elites negotiate and negotiate coalition governments. It was the time of Andreotti, Craxi... Well, I am not so sure. Proportional system reflects better the public opinion but permit the politicians to arrange coalitions that most usually have nothing to do with common interest.
If I might add my own $.02: Of course we don't live in an Athenian style democracy, nor do we get up every day and vote on all the policy issues that face us. In America, we have a representative democracy; a republican form of government.
As we are seeing in Iraq, what may be the majority rule could turn out to be an "Iran-style" Islamic fundamentalist government, certainly the last type of government we would have hoped or planned for. As the Christian Science Monitor [4/14/2003] points out: "With American assistance, a democracy will replace a dictatorship. But then, as a result, Iraq's long tradition of the minority Sunni Muslims ruling over the majority Shiites will likely come to an end."
When a nation commits its troops to a "battle for democracy", it must be prepared for the people's will.
As we are seeing in Iraq, what may be the majority rule could turn out to be an "Iran-style" Islamic fundamentalist government, certainly the last type of government we would have hoped or planned for. As the Christian Science Monitor [4/14/2003] points out: "With American assistance, a democracy will replace a dictatorship. But then, as a result, Iraq's long tradition of the minority Sunni Muslims ruling over the majority Shiites will likely come to an end."
When a nation commits its troops to a "battle for democracy", it must be prepared for the people's will.
It's very important that we educate young people to understand exactly what democracy is, and what it depends on. Many people leave school just thinking that it means that people have the vote. History, Citizenship and Personal and Social Education can help pupils to realise what a fragile, complex and nuanced creature a liberal democracy is. They also need to be taught about 'democratic deficits'; the imperfections and corruptions in democratic systems, whether in the UK, US, Italy or wherever.
I saw a school history question last week which asked 14 year old pupils to identify some characteristics of a democratic system, and thought that this would be a really good test of pupils' grasp of democracy as a concept. They could also be asked to make a list of all the flaws and imperfections which make democratic systems imperfect.
I saw a school history question last week which asked 14 year old pupils to identify some characteristics of a democratic system, and thought that this would be a really good test of pupils' grasp of democracy as a concept. They could also be asked to make a list of all the flaws and imperfections which make democratic systems imperfect.
Many people leave school just thinking that it means that people have the vote
Sadly many of them do not even bother to vote anymore, thinking it has no effect what so ever. At least that is what soem of my students tell me. Anyone with similar expierence?
Sadly many of them do not even bother to vote anymore, thinking it has no effect what so ever. At least that is what soem of my students tell me. Anyone with similar expierence?
QUOTE (UlrikeSchuhFricke @ Jan 26 2004, 11:46 AM)
QUOTE
I would like to say catagorically that neither Britain nor America are democracies. (profhig 24th January)
I beg to differ even though I share some of your ideas concencerning the American and British electoral system and its effects. But when it comes to defining a democracy the electoral system and its shortcomings is only one aspect to consider. There other criteria which define and characterize a democracy like the right of free speech and press and I think we all agree that the media are an effective means of voicing and influencing public opinion. There is the right to form and/or join a party, union, grass-root movement etc.; the right to organise e.g. demonstrations etc.
Looking at the behaviour and attitude of the governments in and of Europe at the moment you can get the impression that after having been elected the Prime Ministers, Presidents, Bundeskanzler, MPs etc. do not care much about public opinion and cannot be controlled continually and effectively by the electorate.
The core of the problem is that we all live in representative/indirect demcocracies and that the only effective influence we seem to have is the ballot paper.
When Germany was reunited again in 1990 it was discussed if our constitution should be changed reinstating referenda and some other elements of direct democracy. The main argument of the supporters of more elements of direct democracy was that that would be a way to engage more people in the democratic process and to make decision-making more democratic. The opponents of the idea of referenda refered to the Weimar Republic and the negative experiences. Unfortunately the opponents won the day and the constitution was not changed.
I personally support the idea of more elements of direct democracy even on a national level (as I said in my previous posting the constitutions of some of the German Laender allow referenda on a local and regional level) because people then can have a more direct say in the running of the country. This also could have the positive effect that people are more interested and enganged in politics.
I take your point about free speech and press. The problem is, do we really have free speech and a free press? (I am concerned mainly with the British system). A case in point, Robert Relf in the 1970's. When the UK introduced, quite rightly, its anti-racism legislation, Mr. Relf advertised his house for sale to 'a white person only.' He was convicted and served a prison sentence for flouting the new law. I am quite sure that we will all agree that his conviction was morally correct. It does, however, mean that Mr. Relf has had his right to free speech curtailed. However much we dislike his opinions, should he have the right to express them?
As far as free press is concerned, I could not afford to start a newspaper to express opinions I am in agreement with. And ultimately the editors of papers decide what to print, so trying to have my opinions put into print through letters pages etc. is dependatnt on an individuals decision. I would also make the point that newspapers are obliged to print the truth, but truths can be manipulated to read differently than the intention of the originator. For example: the 1984 miners strike in the UK. The Saltley coke works had a mass picket to stop lorries going in. A headline on the front page of the 'Evening Mail' read 'policeman injured on picket line' or words to that effect. Most people who read that headline immediately had the impression that the pickets had caused the injury. Reading on, it transpired that the officer in question had slipped on a kerb, sprained his ankle and no picket was involved. It was a pure accident.But people had already condemmed the pickets due to the headline, and reading on to what really happened did not alter opinion. Readers still had it fixed in their mind that pickets were responsible, in as much as they were there.
So free speech? Of ourse we can never have it. It is more a question of where we draw the line.
QUOTE
It is more a question of where we draw the line.
Democracy is about who or what draws and defines the line. The realisation of Human Rights for one group of people can in fact lead to the limitation of them for others (in your case the ethnic minorities' rights versus the landlord's rights). But rights can only be defined, limited by the representatives we elected and at least in Germany we have a Supreme Court where we can complain about laws, execution of laws etc. In contrast to the USA the judges of the German Supreme Court are not elected for life but for a couple of years only and even if they belong to one of the large German parties they - up to now - have always displayed their independence from political interference and/or party politics.
I agree with what you say about free speech, the press etc and what you describe is not restricted to Britain, either, you can find many examples of that in Germany, too and considering how concentrated the media corporations are only highlights the problems you mention.
But you can mention these problems, you can publish them, you can inform your students about these facts.
For me the main problem is to find new ways of attracting especially young people to politics and to find new ways of participation and grass-root organisation.
In a way I think "democracy" is always imperfect and always needs to be questioned, rethought, repaired. The advantage is that you can do this in a democracy- faulty as our democracies seem to be at the moment.
I think that first of all we have to discuss about the concept of "political representation" There is a good book about this, the classical Robert Dhal's On Democracy, a guide for citizens.
No matter the system you adopt as long as some corrections are adopted:
- Division of the three powers
- all political trends should be represented even if they are held by a minority
- free press and access to every group to express their points of view
- create ways of citizens participation on political issues and in all levels of the political organization.
- Education, as Aristotle said: "A good democracy can only be assured on the grounds of an educated man" No one can give up his political responsabilities. Democracy is not just to vote any four years. The vote is not the only way of exercizing democracy or participation. The vote is the final result of a deeper and longer process and not the means of political decision. the problem, from my point of view, in western democracies is that they apply the vote reductionism and democracy is a more serious question.
- Another point: Respect levels of decision . Don't put a decision in a upper level if it can be decided in a lower level, e.g. a local community can decide about how to spend local budgets, it is not a decision of central govermment.
No matter the system you adopt as long as some corrections are adopted:
- Division of the three powers
- all political trends should be represented even if they are held by a minority
- free press and access to every group to express their points of view
- create ways of citizens participation on political issues and in all levels of the political organization.
- Education, as Aristotle said: "A good democracy can only be assured on the grounds of an educated man" No one can give up his political responsabilities. Democracy is not just to vote any four years. The vote is not the only way of exercizing democracy or participation. The vote is the final result of a deeper and longer process and not the means of political decision. the problem, from my point of view, in western democracies is that they apply the vote reductionism and democracy is a more serious question.
- Another point: Respect levels of decision . Don't put a decision in a upper level if it can be decided in a lower level, e.g. a local community can decide about how to spend local budgets, it is not a decision of central govermment.
Billy Bragg has recently launched a campaign to create a new second chamber. He is arguing that the new second chamber should be elected on the basis of the votes cast in a general election (based on a PR system).
This seems a suggestion that might well get the support of the government. It would definitely be an improvement on the House of Lords. However, it has two major drawbacks.
(1) It will give extra power to leaders of political parties as they would control the list of party nominees.
(2) General election votes do not actually reflect overall support for parties. Voters often choose between those they see as the principal contenders in their voting region. This system would therefore result in an under-representation of minority parties.
This seems a suggestion that might well get the support of the government. It would definitely be an improvement on the House of Lords. However, it has two major drawbacks.
(1) It will give extra power to leaders of political parties as they would control the list of party nominees.
(2) General election votes do not actually reflect overall support for parties. Voters often choose between those they see as the principal contenders in their voting region. This system would therefore result in an under-representation of minority parties.
Democracies, monarchies,aristocracies,oligarchies and theocracies have problems with size. We have four levels of democracy in California----- Neighborhood,municipality,state,and national.
The farther away you are,the less control you have over the money leaving your pockets and the greater the anger that someone is getting it,and it isn't you.
Well, we have enough democracy to stop anything from happening.
Currying the majority's favor is difficult and humorous at the same time.All you have to do is look at fashion and listen to music to recognize the limits of the majority and its fickleness. It's one reason we like elites to tell us if the creative juices are not acidic or caustic.
I think the best lesson lies within any classroom. See if the classroom has an orderly system of rule.If it doesn't ,why doesn't it. Madison's Federalist Paper #10 is a great place to begin because he's extremely skeptical about logic and political rule.
The farther away you are,the less control you have over the money leaving your pockets and the greater the anger that someone is getting it,and it isn't you.
Well, we have enough democracy to stop anything from happening.
Currying the majority's favor is difficult and humorous at the same time.All you have to do is look at fashion and listen to music to recognize the limits of the majority and its fickleness. It's one reason we like elites to tell us if the creative juices are not acidic or caustic.
I think the best lesson lies within any classroom. See if the classroom has an orderly system of rule.If it doesn't ,why doesn't it. Madison's Federalist Paper #10 is a great place to begin because he's extremely skeptical about logic and political rule.
Right, size is one of the problems. Small communities make it better. In Spain we only have three levels: municipality, state and central government. We miss neighborhood. According to Betham electoral districs (neighborhood in this case) should be aproximately of the same size for general elections. Most important decisions about welfare, education and social security should be manage at this level.
About having two chambers I agree, but the second chamber should be elected on regional basis to ensure representations of minorities
About having two chambers I agree, but the second chamber should be elected on regional basis to ensure representations of minorities
Interesting article by George Monbiot in today’s Guardian about modern democracies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1159775,00.html
The formula for making things happen is simple and has never changed. If you wish to alter a policy or depose a prime minister between elections, you must take to the streets. Without the poll tax riots, Mrs Thatcher might have contested the 1992 election. If GM crops hadn't been ripped up, they would be in commercial cultivation in Britain today. In the 1990s, protesters forced the government to cut its road-building budget by 80%. Most of the cities where roads were occupied by Reclaim the Streets have introduced major traffic-calming or traffic-reduction schemes. Gordon Brown stopped increasing fuel tax in response to the truckers' blockades.
Direct action, in other words, works. Not always, of course: our submarines still carry nuclear missiles, our airports are still expanding, the 1994 criminal justice bill became law. But it works more consistently than anything else we do. It does not work in isolation - it must be accompanied by polite campaigns of lobbying and letter-writing - but it works because it ensures that the issue stays in the public eye, and therefore exposes the government to continued questioning.
At length, if the campaign is well-organised and popular, the issue becomes a liability, and politicians seek to protect themselves by dumping either the policy, or the author of the policy. In this case it's too late to dump the policy. If the Labour party wants us to forget what it has done in Iraq, it must dump Blair.
You object that we tried this last year, and failed. If the biggest demonstration in British history couldn't change the way the country was run, what could? And of course it's true that we failed to stop the war with Iraq. (It may also be true that we helped to stop the wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and all the other nations the idiotocracy in Washington had lined up for invasion.) But we failed partly because we appeared almost to give up after the march on February 15....
And it's not just because direct action works that we should try it. If Blair goes, it should be our victory, not that of the little grey men. The people must be seen to have done it. Why? Because this is about more than punishing the prime minister for what was almost certainly a war crime. It is about making sure it never happens again.
British politics is still bound by the spell of Gladstone and Churchill. Every prime minister attempts to emulate them. To be a statesman, you need a world stage on which to strut, and if you don't have one, you must borrow it from someone who does. This is why the "special relationship" persists. The establishment might break Blair, but it will not break the spell. Only the people can do that.
If we depose the prime minister through direct action, he will doubtless be succeeded by someone almost as bad, but the political context in which that someone operates will have changed. He will be forced to govern with one eye on the people, and to demonstrate that his policies differ from those of his predecessor. And the issue he would be obliged to address first is Britain's relationship with the rest of the world. Whoever succeeded Blair in these circumstances would tone down our foreign policy until it resembled that of the other northern European states.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1159775,00.html
The formula for making things happen is simple and has never changed. If you wish to alter a policy or depose a prime minister between elections, you must take to the streets. Without the poll tax riots, Mrs Thatcher might have contested the 1992 election. If GM crops hadn't been ripped up, they would be in commercial cultivation in Britain today. In the 1990s, protesters forced the government to cut its road-building budget by 80%. Most of the cities where roads were occupied by Reclaim the Streets have introduced major traffic-calming or traffic-reduction schemes. Gordon Brown stopped increasing fuel tax in response to the truckers' blockades.
Direct action, in other words, works. Not always, of course: our submarines still carry nuclear missiles, our airports are still expanding, the 1994 criminal justice bill became law. But it works more consistently than anything else we do. It does not work in isolation - it must be accompanied by polite campaigns of lobbying and letter-writing - but it works because it ensures that the issue stays in the public eye, and therefore exposes the government to continued questioning.
At length, if the campaign is well-organised and popular, the issue becomes a liability, and politicians seek to protect themselves by dumping either the policy, or the author of the policy. In this case it's too late to dump the policy. If the Labour party wants us to forget what it has done in Iraq, it must dump Blair.
You object that we tried this last year, and failed. If the biggest demonstration in British history couldn't change the way the country was run, what could? And of course it's true that we failed to stop the war with Iraq. (It may also be true that we helped to stop the wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and all the other nations the idiotocracy in Washington had lined up for invasion.) But we failed partly because we appeared almost to give up after the march on February 15....
And it's not just because direct action works that we should try it. If Blair goes, it should be our victory, not that of the little grey men. The people must be seen to have done it. Why? Because this is about more than punishing the prime minister for what was almost certainly a war crime. It is about making sure it never happens again.
British politics is still bound by the spell of Gladstone and Churchill. Every prime minister attempts to emulate them. To be a statesman, you need a world stage on which to strut, and if you don't have one, you must borrow it from someone who does. This is why the "special relationship" persists. The establishment might break Blair, but it will not break the spell. Only the people can do that.
If we depose the prime minister through direct action, he will doubtless be succeeded by someone almost as bad, but the political context in which that someone operates will have changed. He will be forced to govern with one eye on the people, and to demonstrate that his policies differ from those of his predecessor. And the issue he would be obliged to address first is Britain's relationship with the rest of the world. Whoever succeeded Blair in these circumstances would tone down our foreign policy until it resembled that of the other northern European states.
Democracies are undermined by the fact that some people can use their power and wealth to influence the result of elections. Of course, the people who pay out this money expect something in return. The United States has suffered from this problem for some time. George Bush is only the latest president to reward his financial backers.
In Britain there has been a dramatic change in the way the Labour Party has been funded. At one time the party was largely funded by the trade unions. It now relies on donations from wealthy individuals. Of course, it is very unusual for wealthy individuals to provide money to political parties committed to redistribution of wealth. It is therefore no surprise that this aspect of the party’s programme has been dropped.
Early this week the parliamentary ombudsman forced Tony Blair to disclose details of private meetings he has had with commercial lobbyists. This has resulted in the revelation that Blair had a private meeting with Paul Drayson on 6th December, 2001. Soon afterwards two things happened: (1) Drayson donated £100,000 to the Labour Party; (2) Drayson’s company, PowerJect, won a £32 million contract to produce a smallpox vaccine. The most surprising aspect of this contract was that it was not put out to open tender.
Another company to get lots of government contracts is Jarvis. The company is involved in building and maintaining railways, schools, hospitals and roads and is totally dependent on government contracts. Despite having a chairman, Steven Norris, who is a former Conservative Party minister, Jarvis is a generous donor to the Labour Party.
If this happened in local government the person responsible would be imprisoned for corruption. However, prime ministers can do it without any fear of it having any problems with the courts.
In Britain there has been a dramatic change in the way the Labour Party has been funded. At one time the party was largely funded by the trade unions. It now relies on donations from wealthy individuals. Of course, it is very unusual for wealthy individuals to provide money to political parties committed to redistribution of wealth. It is therefore no surprise that this aspect of the party’s programme has been dropped.
Early this week the parliamentary ombudsman forced Tony Blair to disclose details of private meetings he has had with commercial lobbyists. This has resulted in the revelation that Blair had a private meeting with Paul Drayson on 6th December, 2001. Soon afterwards two things happened: (1) Drayson donated £100,000 to the Labour Party; (2) Drayson’s company, PowerJect, won a £32 million contract to produce a smallpox vaccine. The most surprising aspect of this contract was that it was not put out to open tender.
Another company to get lots of government contracts is Jarvis. The company is involved in building and maintaining railways, schools, hospitals and roads and is totally dependent on government contracts. Despite having a chairman, Steven Norris, who is a former Conservative Party minister, Jarvis is a generous donor to the Labour Party.
If this happened in local government the person responsible would be imprisoned for corruption. However, prime ministers can do it without any fear of it having any problems with the courts.
[t now relies on donations from wealthy individuals. Of course, it is very unusual for wealthy individuals to provide money to political parties committed to redistribution of wealth.]
So, we have one point for a democratic regeneration: No private donations to parties should be allowed. Parties must be financed only by members.
Why don't we just try to get some musts for a better democracy out of this forum?
So, we have one point for a democratic regeneration: No private donations to parties should be allowed. Parties must be financed only by members.
Why don't we just try to get some musts for a better democracy out of this forum?
Javier,
no private donations to parties sounds like a nice idea but I'm afraid not a very realistic one. But a "must" must be that these donations have to be made public immediately and if this does not happen parties have to pay huge fines (happened in Germany).
no private donations to parties sounds like a nice idea but I'm afraid not a very realistic one. But a "must" must be that these donations have to be made public immediately and if this does not happen parties have to pay huge fines (happened in Germany).
A recent survey shows that we are going to have a low turn out in Britain’s next general election. There has been some speculation why this situation exists. Some members of the left have argued that like America we now have two dominant right-wing parties. Therefore, for those on the left, it is not worth voting. This does not explain why they don’t vote for the Liberal Democrats who have the most left-wing policies since the Labour Party of the 1980s.
Some commentators have argued that it is all a consequence of Thatcherism. The argument is that since Thatcher we have all become incredibly selfish in Britain. That if it doesn’t directly benefit me, why bother to vote.
As far as I am concerned the main reason is our political system. An academic recently carried out a detailed study of the last election results. He discovered that there was a link between the overall majority and voter turnout. For example, if the majority was 4,000, over 60% voted. However, when the majority was over 18,000, the turn out dropped to less than 50%.
Most constituencies in Britain are safe seats. Therefore, the voter who does not support this party, is tempted not to bother to vote. It is political realism rather than political apathy that is resulting in low turnouts in elections. It would seem that the situation will not change until we end the first past the post system.
Some commentators have argued that it is all a consequence of Thatcherism. The argument is that since Thatcher we have all become incredibly selfish in Britain. That if it doesn’t directly benefit me, why bother to vote.
As far as I am concerned the main reason is our political system. An academic recently carried out a detailed study of the last election results. He discovered that there was a link between the overall majority and voter turnout. For example, if the majority was 4,000, over 60% voted. However, when the majority was over 18,000, the turn out dropped to less than 50%.
Most constituencies in Britain are safe seats. Therefore, the voter who does not support this party, is tempted not to bother to vote. It is political realism rather than political apathy that is resulting in low turnouts in elections. It would seem that the situation will not change until we end the first past the post system.
It is being reported in today’s newspapers that Tony Blair will announce that a UK will have a referendum on the EU constitution. This is the greatest u-turn of his premiership and it is being portrayed as a victory for democracy. However, the situation is a bit more complex than that. Apparently, the only reason that Blair has made this decision is that he is carrying out the orders of Rupert Murdoch. It is claimed that Murdoch was threatening to remove support for the Labour Party at the next election unless Blair committed himself to a referendum. Blair will of course lose the referendum but it is rumoured that it will only be held after the next election. The question is will this satisfy Murdoch. I doubt it. I fully suspect he will be giving his full support to the Conservative Party at the next General Election.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Apr 19 2004, 05:04 PM)
The question is will this satisfy Murdoch. I doubt it. I fully suspect he will be giving his full support to the Conservative Party at the next General Election.
I read recently the 'last Diaries' of Alan Clark and saw the role Murdoch played on the UK's political life seeing by a conservative MP. Then, I can understand what you're saying. But, why Murdoch can change his mind?
Even if he did huge mistakes, Blair will surely win the general election (french Newspapers are sayind so all the time...)
Jean Philippe
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Apr 19 2004, 05:04 PM)
It is being reported in today’s newspapers that Tony Blair will announce that a UK will have a referendum on the EU constitution. This is the greatest u-turn of his premiership and it is being portrayed as a victory for democracy. However, the situation is a bit more complex than that. Apparently, the only reason that Blair has made this decision is that he is carrying out the orders of Rupert Murdoch. It is claimed that Murdoch was threatening to remove support for the Labour Party at the next election unless Blair committed himself to a referendum. Blair will of course lose the referendum but it is rumoured that it will only be held after the next election. The question is will this satisfy Murdoch. I doubt it. I fully suspect he will be giving his full support to the Conservative Party at the next General Election.
I think the situation is a little more complicated than you suggest, John. I'm sure Murdoch is a factor, but outflanking the Tories in the run up to the European Parliamentary elections is also very much on Blair's mind. If Blair gets his wish to hold the referendum in the autumn of 2005 (after his expected victory in next spring's general election), then I wouldn't be too sure that he would lose. Blair can project himself as a champion of democracy by giving the public a chance to have their say in a referendum. Agreeing to hold a referendum may also provide Blair with a greater degree of influence during the upcoming negotiations over the constitution. It also places Chirac in a difficult position. Do the French members of the forum think that Chirac will grant a referendum on this issue? Or, is he too worried about the possibility of a close call like that on Maastricht in 1992?
QUOTE (cd mckie @ Apr 20 2004, 03:12 PM)
I think the situation is a little more complicated than you suggest, John. I'm sure Murdoch is a factor, but outflanking the Tories in the run up to the European Parliamentary elections is also very much on Blair's mind. If Blair gets his wish to hold the referendum in the autumn of 2005 (after his expected victory in next spring's general election), then I wouldn't be too sure that he would lose. Blair can project himself as a champion of democracy by giving the public a chance to have their say in a referendum. Agreeing to hold a referendum may also provide Blair with a greater degree of influence during the upcoming negotiations over the constitution. It also places Chirac in a difficult position. Do the French members of the forum think that Chirac will grant a referendum on this issue? Or, is he too worried about the possibility of a close call like that on Maastricht in 1992?
I do not think it is any more complicated that Blair acting in a way that will increase his chances of being elected at the next election. Polling shows that the EU issue will lose him many votes in the General Election. This is just a cynical attempt to try and put this issue beyond the next election (there is no way he will hold this referendum before the next election). As Charles Kennedy pointed out in the House of Commons yesterday, this is another illustration of just how undemocratic the UK is. We are the only democracy in the world where one of the contestants fires the starting pistol (decides the date of the next election).
JP Raud Dugal: No, do not expect the Conservatives to win the next election. However, I do think there is a chance that Blair will lose his overall majority. This will force him to form a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. If this happens, Blair will probably be forced to resign as prime minister.
The real problem for the government is EU enlargement. The tabloid press has made this an issue of migrant workers entering the country. Many fear, with some justification, that EU enlargement will be used to push up unemployment and to undermine attempts by workers to increase their wage-rates. Teachers who are largely protected by the inflow of foreign workers (although the fear of the increasing use of teaching assistants will give you an idea of how these workers feel) will not be too concerned about these issues. However, it is a major concern for low-skilled and low-waged workers.
You ask if referendums will be held in other European countries. So far referendums are planned in Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic. Austria and Belgium will also probably hold referendums on this issue. So far the two main players in this, France and Germany, are resisting the calls for a referendum. The Swedish prime minister, Goran Persson, is also opposed to the idea. I suspect all three know they will lose a referendum if it was held on this issue.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Apr 21 2004, 10:54 AM)
JP Raud Dugal: No, do not expect the Conservatives to win the next election. However, I do think there is a chance that Blair will lose his overall majority. This will force him to form a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition. If this happens, Blair will probably be forced to resign as prime minister.
Wishful thinking on your part, I fear! I would predict a Blair victory at the next election with a reduced overall majority in double digits (say, 60-90 seats). It's all guesswork at this stage, but I can't see Howard making huge inroads into Labour's massive majority in the Commons. I'm not convinced that the EU will lose Blair votes at the next general election. The British public, at best, are apathetic about this issue. The turnout for the EP elections in June and the referendum on the Constitution next year will confirm this.
At least the British public will have an opportunity to express their opinion at a referendum. I just hope the issue is debated properly in the press and the corridors of power, but somehow I doubt it. It is for this reason that I am rather sceptical about the use of referendums. At the time of the Maastricht referendum in 1992 in France, Mitterand provided all voters with a copy of the whole treaty. Perhaps, Blair might consider doing likewise when the EU Constitution is finalised in June. At least, if that happens, then the voters cannot complain about not having the necessary information at their fingertips.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Apr 21 2004, 10:54 AM)
You ask if referendums will be held in other European countries. So far referendums are planned in Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic. Austria and Belgium will also probably hold referendums on this issue. So far the two main players in this, France and Germany, are resisting the calls for a referendum. The Swedish prime minister, Goran Persson, is also opposed to the idea. I suspect all three know they will lose a referendum if it was held on this issue.
My understanding of the situation is that Schroeder, fearing defeat, will definitely not hold a referendum on the issue. Chirac, on the other hand, is waiting until the final draft of the treaty has been agreed. He may just be under increased pressure from the French press and electorate over the coming weeks to grant a referendum. Given what occurred in Sweden last September (euro referendum and the assassination of Anna Lindt), it is hardly surprising that Goran Persson has refused to grant a referendum on the proposed constitution. Not living in France, I was just wondering if JP Raud Dugal or any other members of the forum had a better idea of the extent of the pressure building up on Chirac to hold a referendum.
cd mckie Posted on Apr 21 2004, 12:58 PM
Given what occurred in Sweden last September (euro referendum and the assassination of Anna Lindt), it is hardly surprising that Goran Persson has refused to grant a referendum on the proposed constitution.
The referendum on the future European Unions constitution in Sweden wouldn’t at all be a referendum on this issue but on the underlying issue “should Sweden be a part of European union in the future?”. If the wish of Swedish people is not to be a part of European union this should be clearly stated prior the "new" referendums and not be a hidden issue as it was one of the hidden issues when recently voting for or against euro.
Swedish people already voted once on the question to belong or not belong a part of European Union and this issue was settled then in favour of becoming a member.
It’s frustrating that opponents of European Union should use all the subsequent referendums and the proposals for referendum to try again and again to settle anew the question already settled.
Did the Swedish people have a chance of referendum when a new constitution of Sweden was decided? Of course they didn’t. These kinds of questions are dealt best inside the ordinary and extraordinary parliamentary sessions. And no one at that time did feel that this approach was undemocratic.
Given what occurred in Sweden last September (euro referendum and the assassination of Anna Lindt), it is hardly surprising that Goran Persson has refused to grant a referendum on the proposed constitution.
The referendum on the future European Unions constitution in Sweden wouldn’t at all be a referendum on this issue but on the underlying issue “should Sweden be a part of European union in the future?”. If the wish of Swedish people is not to be a part of European union this should be clearly stated prior the "new" referendums and not be a hidden issue as it was one of the hidden issues when recently voting for or against euro.
Swedish people already voted once on the question to belong or not belong a part of European Union and this issue was settled then in favour of becoming a member.
It’s frustrating that opponents of European Union should use all the subsequent referendums and the proposals for referendum to try again and again to settle anew the question already settled.
Did the Swedish people have a chance of referendum when a new constitution of Sweden was decided? Of course they didn’t. These kinds of questions are dealt best inside the ordinary and extraordinary parliamentary sessions. And no one at that time did feel that this approach was undemocratic.
QUOTE (Dalibor Svoboda @ Apr 22 2004, 07:52 AM)
The referendum on the future European Unions constitution in Sweden wouldn’t at all be a referendum on this issue but on the underlying issue “should Sweden be a part of European union in the future?”. If the wish of Swedish people is not to be a part of European union this should be clearly stated prior the "new" referendums and not be a hidden issue as it was one of the hidden issues when recently voting for or against euro.
That's one of the main problems with referenda in my opinion, Dalibor. The electorate may not vote on the issue under consideration. They may be swayed by their opinion of the government and let that cloud their judgement.
To be fair, some countries (Ireland is an obvious example) must hold a referendum on the proposed Constitution under their own constitutional arrangements. It is inevitable that both sides will try dominate the campaign agenda. Blair will probably try to argue that it is a vote on whether Britain should remain in the EU in an attempt to scare voters into voting 'yes'. The Conservatives will exaggerate the impact of the Constitution on the UK and will probably argue that the new arrangements will mean that Britain loses control over issues such as taxation and immigration, when in fact that is patently not the case.
If there is going to be a referendum, I hope the electorate in Britain (and elsewhere) actually knows what they are voting on. Relying on politicians to tell them what the impact of the constitution will be is a dangerous game.
Given that, a strong case can be made for arguing that referenda are not effective democratic tools. In addition, the turnout in the UK next autumn will no doubt be disappointingly low.
QUOTE (Dalibor Svoboda @ Apr 22 2004, 07:52 AM)
The referendum on the future European Unions constitution in Sweden wouldn’t at all be a referendum on this issue but on the underlying issue “should Sweden be a part of European union in the future?”. If the wish of Swedish people is not to be a part of European union this should be clearly stated prior the "new" referendums and not be a hidden issue as it was one of the hidden issues when recently voting for or against euro.
That is of course what Tony Blair is hoping to do. However, I assume that the question posed in the referendum will be drafted by an independent organization (in the UK we already have one in place). The organization has already stated that if asked to do this, it will produce a simple question that can be understood by all. You can rest assured that this question will not be about whether we stay in the EU. (There is overwhelming majority in the UK in favour of membership).
However, there is a growing concern about certain aspects of the EU. For the good of democracy these things should be discussed and voted on. It is not enough to leave these issues to General Elections because all the major parties are deeply divided on the subject. I believe the use of referendums will help to reduce the influence of those parties that are united on the issue of the EU (those on the far right). If the referendum does not take place before the next General Election, I fear the far-right will make significant gains in the elections.
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Apr 22 2004, 10:24 AM)
However, I assume that the question posed in the referendum will be drafted by an independent organization (in the UK we already have one in place). The organization has already stated that if asked to do this, it will produce a simple question that can be understood by all.
But will the EU's Constitution be understood by all? I sincerely hope so, or what's the point of having referendum on such a difficult issue? What can be done to educate the population of Europe about the relevant issues?
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Apr 22 2004, 10:24 AM)
I believe the use of referendums will help to reduce the influence of those parties that are united on the issue of the EU (those on the far right). If the referendum does not take place before the next General Election, I fear the far-right will make significant gains in the elections.
I'm all for reducing the impact of the far right, but are you seriously concerned that the BNP will make significant gains in the next general election? That really would be a worrying development for democracy in the UK.
Interesting article in today’s Guardian by David Clark (former Labour government adviser) about the state of democracy in Britain and the rest of the world.
Clark points out that only 59% of the electorate voted at the last British General Election. Only the United States has a poorer voting record (49.3% at the last presidential election). The fact that both use a first-past the post system is obviously the main reason for this. However, as Clark points out, in the past the British electorate voted in much higher numbers.
Clark suggests that there is another reason for this situation. He quotes surveys to show that the British public distrust its politicians more than any other European country. This trust has declined even further over the last year. The latest Eurobarometer survey shows the British government’s trust rating has slumed to –44% (it was –27% at the last election). Apparently, only the people living in the former East Germany trust their government less.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1230138,00.html
Clark points out that only 59% of the electorate voted at the last British General Election. Only the United States has a poorer voting record (49.3% at the last presidential election). The fact that both use a first-past the post system is obviously the main reason for this. However, as Clark points out, in the past the British electorate voted in much higher numbers.
Clark suggests that there is another reason for this situation. He quotes surveys to show that the British public distrust its politicians more than any other European country. This trust has declined even further over the last year. The latest Eurobarometer survey shows the British government’s trust rating has slumed to –44% (it was –27% at the last election). Apparently, only the people living in the former East Germany trust their government less.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1230138,00.html
Honest men will lie and decent men will cheat for power. Few reach the political pinnacles without selling what they do not own and promising what is not theirs to give. In the great and grueling quest for power it is easy to forget that power belongs not to those who possess it for the moment but to the nation and its people.
While power need not be corrupting, it is impossible to deny that the American political system invites corruption. Men must accumulate funds to campaign for office. Those who finance the campaigns expect a return on their investment. Those who are elected must listen to the special interests while they preach about the public interest. To lead they often must follow men whose motives are self-serving.
To keep the White House, Richard Nixon raised more campaign cash than it cost him originally to gain the White House. His agents systematically contacted the nation's great corporations and gave them campaign quotas for their executives to raise. Some paid their allotments hoping it would keep the government off their backs. Others, like International Telephone and Telegraph, sought to make a deal in return for a campaign commitment. Only a few, like American Motors, refused to ante up. Staggering sums were raised to reelect the President. The cost to the people of the United States, and to the free enterprise system, is still being paid in installments.
While power need not be corrupting, it is impossible to deny that the American political system invites corruption. Men must accumulate funds to campaign for office. Those who finance the campaigns expect a return on their investment. Those who are elected must listen to the special interests while they preach about the public interest. To lead they often must follow men whose motives are self-serving.
To keep the White House, Richard Nixon raised more campaign cash than it cost him originally to gain the White House. His agents systematically contacted the nation's great corporations and gave them campaign quotas for their executives to raise. Some paid their allotments hoping it would keep the government off their backs. Others, like International Telephone and Telegraph, sought to make a deal in return for a campaign commitment. Only a few, like American Motors, refused to ante up. Staggering sums were raised to reelect the President. The cost to the people of the United States, and to the free enterprise system, is still being paid in installments.
The US and the UK are bourgeois democracies (i.e everyone can say what they like so long as the corporations take the decisions!) but this does not mean they impose or promote democracy in other countries.
South Africa was a bourgeois democracy - for the whites who had the vote. Israel is a bourgeois democracy but I do not think the Palestinians voted to have the IDF running over their children with tanks.
Colonialism is not about "spreading democracy". The debate over whether the Americans will tolerate a government in Iraq which tells them to p*** off exemplifies this. I do not think anyone actually referred to the South Vietnamese government as a democracy and Reagan's arming of the Contra terrorists, the backing of Pinochet in Chile and a thousand other examples indicate that
"They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected."
(as Tom Lehrer observed)
Have a nice day.
South Africa was a bourgeois democracy - for the whites who had the vote. Israel is a bourgeois democracy but I do not think the Palestinians voted to have the IDF running over their children with tanks.
Colonialism is not about "spreading democracy". The debate over whether the Americans will tolerate a government in Iraq which tells them to p*** off exemplifies this. I do not think anyone actually referred to the South Vietnamese government as a democracy and Reagan's arming of the Contra terrorists, the backing of Pinochet in Chile and a thousand other examples indicate that
"They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected."
(as Tom Lehrer observed)
Have a nice day.
QUOTE (derekmcmillan @ Jun 7 2004, 05:28 PM)
The US and the UK are bourgeois democracies (i.e everyone can say what they like so long as the corporations take the decisions!)
This is a specious position. The UK is clearly a representative democracy in that all citizens have the vote and their is a plurality of parties to vote for. There is also nothing to stop Derek forming his own party and standing for election at any level he chooses. In fact a plethora of minority parties of both extreme right and extreme left are tolerated in the British system. The people have a genuine power to change things in any direction they wish if only they wished it!
Whether aspects of the system could be improved or not is more open to debate. For instance I do not understand why a "democratic country" should fund and sustain an unelected Head of State. I am also deeply concerned about the control of information and the media and consequent structuring of agenda and debate in the UK and in other powerful western democracies. (I suspect this to be a major causal factor in the cynicism which leads to low voter turn out statistics).
I am also concerned that the following statement suggests a deep disregard for democracy and its associated civil rights;
QUOTE
South Africa was a bourgeois democracy - for the whites who had the vote. Israel is a bourgeois democracy but I do not think the Palestinians voted to have the IDF running over their children with tanks.
Derek is quite open open his affiliation to a Marxist-Leninist political party. Lord preserve us from a "Workers democracy" based on the Soviet model.
QUOTE
I am also concerned that the following statement suggests a deep disregard for democracy and its associated civil rights;
QUOTE
South Africa was a bourgeois democracy - for the whites who had the vote. Israel is a bourgeois democracy but I do not think the Palestinians voted to have the IDF running over their children with tanks.
Derek is quite open open his affiliation to a Marxist-Leninist political party. Lord preserve us from a "Workers democracy" based on the Soviet model.
QUOTE
South Africa was a bourgeois democracy - for the whites who had the vote. Israel is a bourgeois democracy but I do not think the Palestinians voted to have the IDF running over their children with tanks.
Derek is quite open open his affiliation to a Marxist-Leninist political party. Lord preserve us from a "Workers democracy" based on the Soviet model.
This is a quote within a quote so I apologise for any confusion.
In Britain we have the right to vote, the right to freedom of speech, the right to organise and the right to strike. This is not because our betters gave us these things. It is because the chartists, the tolpuddle martyrs, the suffragettes and others labelled as "extremists" at the time took them warmly by the throat and insisted.
In point of fact nothing which I have said suggests a disregard, deep or otherwise, for democratic rights. However if democracy is such a good thing why don't the public elect the bosses of Microsoft, or General Motors or of News Corporation? Why is it more democratic to have these powerful conglomerates run on authoritarian lines?
The west is the traditional home of democracy. The fact that western countries share various, usually unspoken characteristics, however, is often ignored. They were the first to industrialise. They colonised a majority of the world, invariably denying their colonies democracy. They were overwhelmingly ethnically homogeneous. Developing countries, for the most part, have faced the opposite circumstances: takeoff in the context of an economically dominant west; the absence, in the context of colonial rule, of indigenous democratic soil; and far greater ethnic diversity.
The west remains oblivious to the profound difficulties presented by ethnic diversity. As Amy Chua points out in World on Fire, democracy is far from a sufficient condition for benign governance in the kind of multiracial societies that are common in Africa and Asia. Democracy, the politics of the majority, allows the majority ethnic group to govern, potentially without constraint. Multi-ethnic societies, like Malaysia or Nigeria, require, for their stability, a racial consensus: democracy, resting on majorities and minorities, is deaf to this problem.
Moreover, democracy works very differently in different cultures. In Japan, the Liberal Democrats have formed every government, apart from a brief interruption, since democracy was introduced more than 50 years ago. The political arguments that count take place between unelected factions of the governing party rather than between elected parties. The Japanese model of democracy - or the Korean or Taiwanese - may have the same trappings as western democracy, but there the similarities largely end.
If it is mistaken to regard western democracy as a universal abstraction that is equally applicable across the world, it is also wrong to see it as frozen and unchanging. Indeed, there are grounds for believing that western democracy, as we have known it, is in decline. The symptoms have been well-rehearsed: the decline of parties, the fall in turnout, a growing disregard for politicians, the displacement of politics from the centre-stage of society. These trends have beenobservable more or less everywhere for at least 15 years.
The underlying reasons are even more disturbing than the symptoms. The emergence of mass suffrage and modern party politics coincided with the rise of the labour movement, which drove the extension of the vote and obliged political parties to engage in popular mobilisation. The rise of the modern labour movement, moreover, provided societies with real choices: instead of the logic of the market, it offered a different philosophy and a different kind of society. The decline of traditional social-democratic parties, as illustrated by New Labour, has meant the erosion of choice, at least in any profound sense of the term. The result is that voting has often become less meaningful. Politics has moved on to singular ground: that of the market.
The influence of the market is manifest in multiple ways. The funding of parties now moves solely to its rhythm: big business and the rich are as important to New Labour as they are to the Conservatives. The same interests fund, and therefore influence, the parties. Big money calls the tune. Nowhere is this truer than in American politics, which has become a plutocracy mediated by democracy, rather than the reverse. As the media has displaced traditional forms of discourse and mobilisation, ownership of the media has become increasingly important in the determination of political choices and electoral results. The most dangerous example is in Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi's ownership of the bulk of the private media has enabled him to transform Italian democracy into something verging on a mediaocracy, leaving politics and the state besieged by his immense personal power and wealth.
Perhaps these developments point to a deeper problem incipient in western democracies. Far from the free market and democracy enjoying the kind of harmonious relationship beloved of western propaganda, democracy grew in fact as a constraint on the market, holding it at bay and enabling a pluralism of values and imperatives. What happens when this healthy tension becomes a dangerous imbalance, in which the market is dominant and consumerism is established as the overriding ethos of society, permeating politics just as it has invaded every other nook and cranny of society? Democracy comes under siege. In Italy it is already gasping for breath. In the US it is deeply and increasingly flawed. Democracy is neither a platitude nor an eternal verity - either for the world or for the west.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1244327,00.html
The west remains oblivious to the profound difficulties presented by ethnic diversity. As Amy Chua points out in World on Fire, democracy is far from a sufficient condition for benign governance in the kind of multiracial societies that are common in Africa and Asia. Democracy, the politics of the majority, allows the majority ethnic group to govern, potentially without constraint. Multi-ethnic societies, like Malaysia or Nigeria, require, for their stability, a racial consensus: democracy, resting on majorities and minorities, is deaf to this problem.
Moreover, democracy works very differently in different cultures. In Japan, the Liberal Democrats have formed every government, apart from a brief interruption, since democracy was introduced more than 50 years ago. The political arguments that count take place between unelected factions of the governing party rather than between elected parties. The Japanese model of democracy - or the Korean or Taiwanese - may have the same trappings as western democracy, but there the similarities largely end.
If it is mistaken to regard western democracy as a universal abstraction that is equally applicable across the world, it is also wrong to see it as frozen and unchanging. Indeed, there are grounds for believing that western democracy, as we have known it, is in decline. The symptoms have been well-rehearsed: the decline of parties, the fall in turnout, a growing disregard for politicians, the displacement of politics from the centre-stage of society. These trends have beenobservable more or less everywhere for at least 15 years.
The underlying reasons are even more disturbing than the symptoms. The emergence of mass suffrage and modern party politics coincided with the rise of the labour movement, which drove the extension of the vote and obliged political parties to engage in popular mobilisation. The rise of the modern labour movement, moreover, provided societies with real choices: instead of the logic of the market, it offered a different philosophy and a different kind of society. The decline of traditional social-democratic parties, as illustrated by New Labour, has meant the erosion of choice, at least in any profound sense of the term. The result is that voting has often become less meaningful. Politics has moved on to singular ground: that of the market.
The influence of the market is manifest in multiple ways. The funding of parties now moves solely to its rhythm: big business and the rich are as important to New Labour as they are to the Conservatives. The same interests fund, and therefore influence, the parties. Big money calls the tune. Nowhere is this truer than in American politics, which has become a plutocracy mediated by democracy, rather than the reverse. As the media has displaced traditional forms of discourse and mobilisation, ownership of the media has become increasingly important in the determination of political choices and electoral results. The most dangerous example is in Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi's ownership of the bulk of the private media has enabled him to transform Italian democracy into something verging on a mediaocracy, leaving politics and the state besieged by his immense personal power and wealth.
Perhaps these developments point to a deeper problem incipient in western democracies. Far from the free market and democracy enjoying the kind of harmonious relationship beloved of western propaganda, democracy grew in fact as a constraint on the market, holding it at bay and enabling a pluralism of values and imperatives. What happens when this healthy tension becomes a dangerous imbalance, in which the market is dominant and consumerism is established as the overriding ethos of society, permeating politics just as it has invaded every other nook and cranny of society? Democracy comes under siege. In Italy it is already gasping for breath. In the US it is deeply and increasingly flawed. Democracy is neither a platitude nor an eternal verity - either for the world or for the west.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1244327,00.html
QUOTE
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Winston S Churchill, 1947
Winston S Churchill, 1947
I know quoting arch-imperialist-racist-bogeyman Churchill clearly puts me in the reactionary, older generation camp, but I do think there's a lot to be said for his position.
Yes, in bourgeois democracy an inordinate amount of power is concentrated in the hands of a few oligarchs.
Yes, there is little real choice between Blairite New Labour and the Conservatives and even less between New Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Yes, the elected representatives are distant and largely unaccountable.
Yes, public frustration with their lack of control over the system leads to ever-greater levels of apathy and abstention.
And yes, it's all a lot worse in the USA!
So, what's the alternative?
I think we can discount Athenian direct democracy. Modern society is just too interconnected and complicated for the ordinary citizens to exercise direct control.
So, if we reject repesentative democracy -- for all the reasons I listed above -- then with what should we replace it?
I suppose we could move towards some sort of system based on frequent plebiscites or referendums. Unfortunately, we'd then be out of Europe, have swingeing restrictions on immigration, have brought back hanging, etc, etc. I don't think I'd prefer to live in a society based on those sorts of values.
Another alternative would be to put all our trust in the wisdom and strength of will of a single leader. Perhaps we could even be allowed to elect him/her (once). However, the Germans and Italians tried this and it didn't work too well for them.
So what, exactly, are the critics of western-style democracy proposing to replace it with?
QUOTE (mike tribe @ Jun 24 2004, 12:57 PM)
So what, exactly, are the critics of western-style democracy proposing to replace it with?
Good question. I am willing to get the ball rolling with my plan.
My first move would be to abolish the House of Lords. In future, the country would be governed by a single chamber, the House of Citizens (yes, the monarchy would have to go as well).
The election would be based on proportional representation. The parliament would be for a fixed two-year term. The government would have no power over deciding when elections take place.
A referendum would be held where the British public would decide on which six political parties would receive state grants. After this, individuals would only be allowed to provide that party with a maximum of £50 a year. All organizations would be forbidden to fund these political parties.
All political parties would publish a manifesto explaining why they deserved state funding. The public would then make their decision to decide the six political parties. I would expect the six to be New Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Socialist, Green and a right-wing Nationalist Party. This vote would be held every five years in order to enable the British public to replace the existing parties with another party.
All MPs would be paid a fixed wage (around £35,000). Government ministers, including the prime minister, would receive the same money. This would mean that all politicians would be encouraged to use the public services that they currently control. I think you will find that this would result in a dramatic improvement in these services.
Of course, this fixed wage rate would stop a large number of people wanting to become MPs. However, it will guarantee that those who do get elected have a strong commitment to public service. It would have the added advantage of keeping out people in highly paid jobs who see entering parliament as a good career move.
The money spent by parties on general elections would be tightly controlled. The state would pay for party manifestos to be delivered to every household. All television stations would show political broadcasts. Each party would be given the same amount of time.
Using this system, one political party is likely to have an overall majority. Therefore, the leader of the largest political party would be given the opportunity to discuss the possibility of forming a coalition government. If he or she fails in this, the leader of the second largest political would be given the opportunity to form a government. In fact, it is possible that the two largest parties might not actually form a government (for example, you might end up with a Liberal Democrat/Socialist/Green coalition.
Tony Blair is probably the most corrupt prime minister we have had in our history. There is evidence that money given to his party by certain businessmen has influenced government policy. It has been done very cleverly and it is difficult to prove (Blair is rarely directly involved in these negotiations).
Recently the parliamentary ombudsman forced Tony Blair to disclose details of private meetings he has had with commercial lobbyists. This has resulted in the revelation that Blair had a private meeting with Paul Drayson on 6th December, 2001. Soon afterwards two things happened: (1) Drayson donated £100,000 to the Labour Party; (2) Drayson’s company, PowerJect, won a £32 million contract to produce a smallpox vaccine. The most surprising aspect of this contract was that it was not put out to open tender. If it had of been the contract would have gone to a German-Danish company called Bavarian Nordic. It is this company that Drayson has purchased the smallpox vaccine from. It is believed that Drayson paid Bavarian Nordic £12m for the vaccine. In other words his £100,000 investment has resulted in a £20m profit.
It was recently revealed (Robin Ramsay’s The Rise of New Labour) that when Blair became a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party in 1994, Gideon Meir, a senior official at the Israeli Embassy in London, introduced him to Michael Levy (an extremely wealthy Jewish businessmen). Levy agreed to help Blair to become leader of the party. Levy, with the help of four other Jewish businessmen (Sir Emmanuel Kaye, Sir Trevor Chinn, Maurice Hatter, and David Goldman) provided Blair with £7m. This paid for his campaign plus the running of his private office. This money allowed Blair to become independent of Labour Party funding. Could it be this money, rather than the charm of George Bush, that persuaded Blair to give his support to the American (Israeli) policy in the Middle East.
Recently the parliamentary ombudsman forced Tony Blair to disclose details of private meetings he has had with commercial lobbyists. This has resulted in the revelation that Blair had a private meeting with Paul Drayson on 6th December, 2001. Soon afterwards two things happened: (1) Drayson donated £100,000 to the Labour Party; (2) Drayson’s company, PowerJect, won a £32 million contract to produce a smallpox vaccine. The most surprising aspect of this contract was that it was not put out to open tender. If it had of been the contract would have gone to a German-Danish company called Bavarian Nordic. It is this company that Drayson has purchased the smallpox vaccine from. It is believed that Drayson paid Bavarian Nordic £12m for the vaccine. In other words his £100,000 investment has resulted in a £20m profit.
It was recently revealed (Robin Ramsay’s The Rise of New Labour) that when Blair became a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party in 1994, Gideon Meir, a senior official at the Israeli Embassy in London, introduced him to Michael Levy (an extremely wealthy Jewish businessmen). Levy agreed to help Blair to become leader of the party. Levy, with the help of four other Jewish businessmen (Sir Emmanuel Kaye, Sir Trevor Chinn, Maurice Hatter, and David Goldman) provided Blair with £7m. This paid for his campaign plus the running of his private office. This money allowed Blair to become independent of Labour Party funding. Could it be this money, rather than the charm of George Bush, that persuaded Blair to give his support to the American (Israeli) policy in the Middle East.
The sad truth about the USA today is that its governement has now been taken over by extremeists. George W Bush is undoubtedly the worst thing ever to have happened to the United States since the Civil War. Bush junior is an illiterate incoherent idiot. How this moron became president of the United States is a mystery. He certainly was not elected president.
The sooner the United States throws GWB and his neocons out the better and safer place the United States and the world will be.
I look forward to November 2004 to see George W Bush being trounced and humliated at the ELECTION!
The sooner the United States throws GWB and his neocons out the better and safer place the United States and the world will be.
I look forward to November 2004 to see George W Bush being trounced and humliated at the ELECTION!
We not only need a radical strengthening of parliament's holding the executive to account but also, even more important, new forms of direct democracy involving the electorate.
In parliament, we need a fully elected second chamber - perhaps based on regional representation - in order to secure a more democratic determination of policy than a whipped programme handed down from above without genuine consultation. We need cabinet appointments to be ratified at a public hearing of the appropriate select committee before they can come into effect, so that the principle of joint accountability to both prime minister and parliament is established, with the option of recall by either where justified.
We need the appointment of the chair and members of specialist committees of inquiry (such as Hutton and Butler), and their terms of reference, to require approval by the relevant select committee. And we need the members of these revamped committees to be elected - in quotas reflecting the balance between the parties in the Commons - by MPs of each party in a secret ballot. If introduced, these measures would greatly strengthen parliament in checking the centralisation of power in the executive.
But the democratic deficit will not be met without wider reform. Turnout at elections is steadily declining because people feel that one vote every 4-5 years gives them no influence over major events - foundation hospitals, top-up fees, GM crops, war in Iraq, to name just some.
Bills, instead of being hammered through parliament on a whipped vote, should be examined first by a Commons committee in televised sessions, with specialist witnesses. Interested electors could then offer online comments, to be fed into the parliamentary process.
Even more important is to draw on best democratic experience from abroad. In Switzerland, for example, citizens have a right to call a referendum on any issue they like, so long as they gather enough signatures. Indeed, any new law brought before the Swiss parliament can be challenged by the voters before it is enacted. If 1% of the population sign up to a proposal within an 18-month period, it can be voted on by the public and, if passed, become law. This really is direct democracy in action.
Suppose, more modestly, we were to require a 5% threshold: that would require nearly 2 million people to sign up - an exacting demand, but by no means a prohibitive one. It would radically transform our politics.
Of course there is a risk, with inflammatory tabloid headlines, that law-making could be too influenced by emotions rather than reasoned judgments. But a delay before a referendum could be held would allow tempers to cool. What is needed is a public debate about the pros and cons of referendums, which would enable us to achieve a real element of direct democracy while minimising any unintended misuses. If we could get that balance, it would re-engage public involvement in the big decisions, make politics meaningful beyond one vote every five years and, as a last resort, hold government leaders to account when all else fails.
In parliament, we need a fully elected second chamber - perhaps based on regional representation - in order to secure a more democratic determination of policy than a whipped programme handed down from above without genuine consultation. We need cabinet appointments to be ratified at a public hearing of the appropriate select committee before they can come into effect, so that the principle of joint accountability to both prime minister and parliament is established, with the option of recall by either where justified.
We need the appointment of the chair and members of specialist committees of inquiry (such as Hutton and Butler), and their terms of reference, to require approval by the relevant select committee. And we need the members of these revamped committees to be elected - in quotas reflecting the balance between the parties in the Commons - by MPs of each party in a secret ballot. If introduced, these measures would greatly strengthen parliament in checking the centralisation of power in the executive.
But the democratic deficit will not be met without wider reform. Turnout at elections is steadily declining because people feel that one vote every 4-5 years gives them no influence over major events - foundation hospitals, top-up fees, GM crops, war in Iraq, to name just some.
Bills, instead of being hammered through parliament on a whipped vote, should be examined first by a Commons committee in televised sessions, with specialist witnesses. Interested electors could then offer online comments, to be fed into the parliamentary process.
Even more important is to draw on best democratic experience from abroad. In Switzerland, for example, citizens have a right to call a referendum on any issue they like, so long as they gather enough signatures. Indeed, any new law brought before the Swiss parliament can be challenged by the voters before it is enacted. If 1% of the population sign up to a proposal within an 18-month period, it can be voted on by the public and, if passed, become law. This really is direct democracy in action.
Suppose, more modestly, we were to require a 5% threshold: that would require nearly 2 million people to sign up - an exacting demand, but by no means a prohibitive one. It would radically transform our politics.
Of course there is a risk, with inflammatory tabloid headlines, that law-making could be too influenced by emotions rather than reasoned judgments. But a delay before a referendum could be held would allow tempers to cool. What is needed is a public debate about the pros and cons of referendums, which would enable us to achieve a real element of direct democracy while minimising any unintended misuses. If we could get that balance, it would re-engage public involvement in the big decisions, make politics meaningful beyond one vote every five years and, as a last resort, hold government leaders to account when all else fails.
QUOTE (Erik A. Olsen @ Jul 9 2005, 09:42 PM)
Another poster mentioned our dwindling rights in our democracy. I certainly would not want to sound cynical but I've felt in my adult years that we have never, by design, been a legitimate democracy. For a time this was a republic, but our political system has degenerated into an absolute oligarchy. The assassination is just a good example of this state. How could we lose what we never had? The only difference between the old Soviet Union and the United States was that they were honest. "Life stinks and it'll probably stink tomorrow. Welcome to the Worker's Paradise." While our expertise lay in marketing ad advertising. "Yes, things are not quite right presently, but you get a vote and in four years things will change because of it!"....
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Jul 9 2005, 10:56 PM)
Erik, I think this is very much on the mark. There's nothing wrong with sounding cynical when you're stating the truth. I think American democracy to a large extent has been a charade for at least as long (in hindsight) as I can remember.
Dallas and 9/11 are the two most egregious examples of when the oligarchic/MIC beast behind the democratic charade has raised its ugly head to impose basic change. Normally the well-fed beast is content to let the people have their fun and games, vigorously debating about whom to cast their votes for in the next stolen election.
Dallas and 9/11 are the two most egregious examples of when the oligarchic/MIC beast behind the democratic charade has raised its ugly head to impose basic change. Normally the well-fed beast is content to let the people have their fun and games, vigorously debating about whom to cast their votes for in the next stolen election.
Over the last few months there have been several quotations like those above from Erik and Ron. As an outsider I have long seen America as a flawed democracy. However, our media, portrays America very differently. The impression is given that the American people are not aware of what is happening to their country. This has been reinforced by the re-election of George Bush.
Since starting the JFK Assassination of Forum I have been given new insights into American politics. I know you are not typical but your understanding of the American political process has amazed me. However, your postings have also disturbed me. In the UK we have similar problems with our flawed democratic system as you do. Yet, most of us still feel we can do something about it. Whereas American posters seem resigned to their fate.
I would therefore like to ask two questions: Is America a democracy? If not, can it become a democracy?
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Jul 14 2005, 03:03 AM)
But make no mistake about our political system being a democracy. Just because our first past the post system makes it difficult for smaller voices to be heard, does not mean that populism cannot shake people out of their seats in Washington.
We are also a capitalist system, and as in any other society I can think of, people with lots of money have an inordinate impact on the policies of our country.
Complacency lets the milionaires club rule through influence peddling. The people get the governmnet they deserve. That is democracy.
We are also a capitalist system, and as in any other society I can think of, people with lots of money have an inordinate impact on the policies of our country.
Complacency lets the milionaires club rule through influence peddling. The people get the governmnet they deserve. That is democracy.
The current view of the world is that the capitalist system provides the best balance between economic efficiency, freedom of expression and democracy. Other systems such as military dictatorships, the Soviet-style state communist model and German-style fascist dictatorships have all had a poor record when it comes to freedom of expression and democracy.
We therefore seem to be left with capitalism. However, this system has serious drawbacks. For example, it creates a great deal of inequality between individuals and between countries. This leads to conflict and in some cases, wars and recently, acts of terrorism. It also results in large numbers of people dying because they lack food, clean water and access to basic health-care. If unchecked, the capitalist system, because of the way it functions, will also destroy itself and the world.
It seems to me that the only way we are going to live in a harmonious society, let alone survive, is to use the democratic process to shape the economic system that has so much influence over our lives.
Some countries seem to have been more successful than others in this regard. For example, Sweden, Norway and Finland. Although all these countries still have serious problems to deal with, they have managed to place certain restrictions over the power of the wealthy elite.
For a democracy to function effectively, it is necessary to control the amount of power that comes with wealth. Ever since the early days of democracy, wealthy individuals have sought to control the political thoughts of the electors. This has mainly been done by controlling the media. In the 19th century, it was very important for the power elite to control the content of daily newspapers. In the 20th century they also had to do the same thing with radio and television.
Over the last 100 years it has become clear that it is not enough for the power elite to control mass communications. It became vitally important to control the politicians and the political parties that governed the country. In some cases this was done legally by funding the political parties. In return for this money these wealthy individuals expected certain policies to become the law of the land. For example, a low-rate of income-tax and a deregulated economic system. In times of crisis, illegal activity has been necessary. This has usually taken the form of bribing politicians. In other cases, such as with John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, it has involved employing a more drastic strategy.
It seems to me that the best way to save the world is to improve the way democracy works. It means finding a way to make sure we are ruled in the interests of the majority rather than in the interests of a small minority.
At the moment most of the citizens of the developed world appears to be suffering from disillusionment and apathy. Somehow we have got to find a way of activating the world’s citizens. If this happens, it might trigger off the imposition of fascist-style dictatorships, however, if we don’t try, we will never know what is possible.
We have one thing going for us in our favour. That is the change taking place in the field of mass communication. As a result of the web the multinational media corporations are losing control over our minds. This forum is just one example of this important development. Hopefully we will be able to use this new form of mass communication to create a truly democratic system.
QUOTE
Some countries seem to have been more successful than others in this regard. For example, Sweden, Norway and Finland. Although all these countries still have serious problems to deal with, they have managed to place certain restrictions over the power of the wealthy elite.
To some extent this was true but during the 1980's we could definitely see a change in Sweden. A big part of this change was connected with the economy and it's more rapid globalization. Several typical "Swedish companies" as SAAB, Volvo, SKF etc... are now part of multinational companies. As a result of this globalization Sweden also joined the European Union (after a referendum that included a mailed threat of economic collapse and ruin if we voted NO sent out by representatives of the YES committee on official goverment papers(!) to all Swedish households and a declared policy of the Social Democratic government to continue with referendums in this matter until Sweden voted YES... )
We now see a bigger similarity between Sweden and the other Western countries when we study political democracy. Swedes who usually showed great interest in national and local politics and actually expressed a belief in being able to influence the political course of the country now reacted in a very similar way to all the countries who have lost their faith in the "democratic elections". One of the biggest signs of this is the lack of interest showed in the elections to the European parliament. In the first Swedish election 1995 to the European parliament 41.6% of the population used their democratic right to vote, in 1999 the number was 38.8% and in 2004 37.85% and we see no sign of any change of this trend. This trend has also affected the national elections. In 1976 91.8% of the population voted in the election to the Swedish parliament. These numbers have gradually dropped and in the latest election "only" 80.1% of the population voted.
The sceptic approach towards western liberal democratic system which I can feel when reading certain postings is not uncommon between ordinary people of today.
Democracy is certainly not flawless as a political system. But isn’t it rather a human nature (sometimes brutal sometimes kind, sometimes fair sometimes unfair) which makes democracy to work less well here and there?
It’s first when one loose ”democracy” one discover what terrible thing happened in one’s life!
Isn’t it like eating? Some of us don’t like fish and others are vegetarian. And we all can discuss what kinds of meals are satisfying or dissatisfying to us. But when we are confronted with hunger (a real and deadly hunger) we accept all kinds of food, discovering the value of it.
The same goes for democracy.
Persons living in democracy can speedily count out all the flaws of the system but at the same time are not able to offer plausible solutions to these shortcomings.
Persons consuming democracy for a quite substantial time are often not able to understand that people deprived of it long for it ………
Democracy is certainly not flawless as a political system. But isn’t it rather a human nature (sometimes brutal sometimes kind, sometimes fair sometimes unfair) which makes democracy to work less well here and there?
It’s first when one loose ”democracy” one discover what terrible thing happened in one’s life!
Isn’t it like eating? Some of us don’t like fish and others are vegetarian. And we all can discuss what kinds of meals are satisfying or dissatisfying to us. But when we are confronted with hunger (a real and deadly hunger) we accept all kinds of food, discovering the value of it.
The same goes for democracy.
Persons living in democracy can speedily count out all the flaws of the system but at the same time are not able to offer plausible solutions to these shortcomings.
Persons consuming democracy for a quite substantial time are often not able to understand that people deprived of it long for it ………
Dear Colleagues,
From my point of view we are living very far from democracy and it is blue dream for people to reach it in one day. But from the other hand we have not nothing better at the moment to use and explore in our daily lives. Communism collapsed as a nice idea for poor people so capitalist implementation of democracy is working in the field now.
I came from totalitarian society and have to say you that your meaning of democracy means death for former USSR republics and people (the whole generation grew up under completely different ideas but under the name of democracy too). Social values dominated during this period of time - people had free of charge medical care, education, houses and had predicable future for their children but now after the so called period of new democracy - millions homeless people, street children (like after WW2 we watch by TV in your countries such a situation but now in every republic millions of poor people and very few have milliards of money to transfer them into West economy not their own, buying football clubs like Abramovich but his own people in Chokotka are dying of starvation but he is a governor of this region - gave people before elections a bottle of vodka and peace of bread according to their newspapers.
Is it democracy they are crying at every corner - no of course not. So, when USA is using military power under the name of democracy I do not believe in their honesty. Oil and resourses, property and money are the main value for them and others countries who supporting them can't refuse because they never will get support from USA and it is better for them under the name of democracy to kill their own people and pay some money to the families. People's life cost very few now.
I was teaching soldiers and officers when we invaded Afganistan that we are helping poor people to live better and build better society. USSR wanted to have total control under this region because USA wanted the same. Who was thinking about ordinary people. Politicians were thinking about their own interest by using poor people in this direction under different names - freedom, democracy socialism and etc. So, millions of our people hate Mr. Gorbachev for his policy and total destruction and he never will get any votes within former USSR but for west he is a Hero.
We are very different and from very different civilisations and systems. It is true and clash of civilisations continue.
From my point of view we are living very far from democracy and it is blue dream for people to reach it in one day. But from the other hand we have not nothing better at the moment to use and explore in our daily lives. Communism collapsed as a nice idea for poor people so capitalist implementation of democracy is working in the field now.
I came from totalitarian society and have to say you that your meaning of democracy means death for former USSR republics and people (the whole generation grew up under completely different ideas but under the name of democracy too). Social values dominated during this period of time - people had free of charge medical care, education, houses and had predicable future for their children but now after the so called period of new democracy - millions homeless people, street children (like after WW2 we watch by TV in your countries such a situation but now in every republic millions of poor people and very few have milliards of money to transfer them into West economy not their own, buying football clubs like Abramovich but his own people in Chokotka are dying of starvation but he is a governor of this region - gave people before elections a bottle of vodka and peace of bread according to their newspapers.
Is it democracy they are crying at every corner - no of course not. So, when USA is using military power under the name of democracy I do not believe in their honesty. Oil and resourses, property and money are the main value for them and others countries who supporting them can't refuse because they never will get support from USA and it is better for them under the name of democracy to kill their own people and pay some money to the families. People's life cost very few now.
I was teaching soldiers and officers when we invaded Afganistan that we are helping poor people to live better and build better society. USSR wanted to have total control under this region because USA wanted the same. Who was thinking about ordinary people. Politicians were thinking about their own interest by using poor people in this direction under different names - freedom, democracy socialism and etc. So, millions of our people hate Mr. Gorbachev for his policy and total destruction and he never will get any votes within former USSR but for west he is a Hero.
We are very different and from very different civilisations and systems. It is true and clash of civilisations continue.
QUOTE (Vladimir Kalinin (2) @ Jul 17 2005, 03:38 PM)
Dear Colleagues,
From my point of view we are living very far from democracy and it is blue dream for people to reach it in one day. But from the other hand we have not nothing better at the moment to use and explore in our daily lives. Communism collapsed as a nice idea for poor people so capitalist implementation of democracy is working in the field now.
I came from totalitarian society and have to say you that your meaning of democracy means death for former USSR republics and people (the whole generation grew up under completely different ideas but under the name of democracy too). Social values dominated during this period of time - people had free of charge medical care, education, houses and had predicable future for their children but now after the so called period of new democracy - millions homeless people, street children (like after WW2 we watch by TV in your countries such a situation but now in every republic millions of poor people and very few have milliards of money to transfer them into West economy not their own, buying football clubs like Abramovich but his own people in Chokotka are dying of starvation but he is a governor of this region - gave people before elections a bottle of vodka and peace of bread according to their newspapers.
Is it democracy they are crying at every corner - no of course not. So, when USA is using military power under the name of democracy I do not believe in their honesty. Oil and resourses, property and money are the main value for them and others countries who supporting them can't refuse because they never will get support from USA and it is better for them under the name of democracy to kill their own people and pay some money to the families. People's life cost very few now.
I was teaching soldiers and officers when we invaded Afganistan that we are helping poor people to live better and build better society. USSR wanted to have total control under this region because USA wanted the same. Who was thinking about ordinary people. Politicians were thinking about their own interest by using poor people in this direction under different names - freedom, democracy socialism and etc. So, millions of our people hate Mr. Gorbachev for his policy and total destruction and he never will get any votes within former USSR but for west he is a Hero.
We are very different and from very different civilisations and systems. It is true and clash of civilisations continue.
From my point of view we are living very far from democracy and it is blue dream for people to reach it in one day. But from the other hand we have not nothing better at the moment to use and explore in our daily lives. Communism collapsed as a nice idea for poor people so capitalist implementation of democracy is working in the field now.
I came from totalitarian society and have to say you that your meaning of democracy means death for former USSR republics and people (the whole generation grew up under completely different ideas but under the name of democracy too). Social values dominated during this period of time - people had free of charge medical care, education, houses and had predicable future for their children but now after the so called period of new democracy - millions homeless people, street children (like after WW2 we watch by TV in your countries such a situation but now in every republic millions of poor people and very few have milliards of money to transfer them into West economy not their own, buying football clubs like Abramovich but his own people in Chokotka are dying of starvation but he is a governor of this region - gave people before elections a bottle of vodka and peace of bread according to their newspapers.
Is it democracy they are crying at every corner - no of course not. So, when USA is using military power under the name of democracy I do not believe in their honesty. Oil and resourses, property and money are the main value for them and others countries who supporting them can't refuse because they never will get support from USA and it is better for them under the name of democracy to kill their own people and pay some money to the families. People's life cost very few now.
I was teaching soldiers and officers when we invaded Afganistan that we are helping poor people to live better and build better society. USSR wanted to have total control under this region because USA wanted the same. Who was thinking about ordinary people. Politicians were thinking about their own interest by using poor people in this direction under different names - freedom, democracy socialism and etc. So, millions of our people hate Mr. Gorbachev for his policy and total destruction and he never will get any votes within former USSR but for west he is a Hero.
We are very different and from very different civilisations and systems. It is true and clash of civilisations continue.
Thank you for this contribution. Those on the left have been watching in horror at what is happening in many of the countries in Eastern Europe since the collapse of communism. It is clear that western governments were never really interested in the introduction of democracy in your countries. All they wanted was the freedom for their large corporations to enter your markets. They seem completely unconcerned about how the old regimes have been replaced by criminal elements of the old Communist Party. What people like Abramovich have done is a disgrace. From my reading of the subject it appears that Gorbachev put certain safeguards in place to stop this happening but these were removed by Yeltsin. These are the people who are now the financial backers of the current Russian government. This is very similar to what goes on in the so called democracies of the UK and the US. However, it is done wit more subtlety in the west.
What of the future? The only way to stop this is for the people to become mobilized against the government. I am afraid governments never give people their freedom. It always has to be won. Nor can it be imposed by some foreign power as in Iraq. Once you have won your freedom and democracy you need to be eternally vigilant to make sure they don’t take those hard won concessions away again (as has happened in the UK and the US).
QUOTE (Anders MacGregor-Thunell @ Jul 16 2005, 12:14 PM)
QUOTE
Some countries seem to have been more successful than others in this regard. For example, Sweden, Norway and Finland. Although all these countries still have serious problems to deal with, they have managed to place certain restrictions over the power of the wealthy elite.
To some extent this was true but during the 1980's we could definitely see a change in Sweden. A big part of this change was connected with the economy and it's more rapid globalization. Several typical "Swedish companies" as SAAB, Volvo, SKF etc... are now part of multinational companies. As a result of this globalization Sweden also joined the European Union (after a referendum that included a mailed threat of economic collapse and ruin if we voted NO sent out by representatives of the YES committee on official goverment papers(!) to all Swedish households and a declared policy of the Social Democratic government to continue with referendums in this matter until Sweden voted YES... )
We now see a bigger similarity between Sweden and the other Western countries when we study political democracy. Swedes who usually showed great interest in national and local politics and actually expressed a belief in being able to influence the political course of the country now reacted in a very similar way to all the countries who have lost their faith in the "democratic elections". One of the biggest signs of this is the lack of interest showed in the elections to the European parliament. In the first Swedish election 1995 to the European parliament 41.6% of the population used their democratic right to vote, in 1999 the number was 38.8% and in 2004 37.85% and we see no sign of any change of this trend. This trend has also affected the national elections. In 1976 91.8% of the population voted in the election to the Swedish parliament. These numbers have gradually dropped and in the latest election "only" 80.1% of the population voted.
It could be perhaps of interest for some debaters who raised the issue of Scandinavian model of developing democracy with the help of the welfare state to read a report written by professor and MP Mauricio Rojas called “Sweden after the Swedish model” .
This report could be easily downloaded as a pdf file from:
http://www.timbro.se/mail/20050621/
QUOTE (Ron Ecker @ Jul 14 2005, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE (Raymond Blair @ Jul 14 2005, 03:03 AM)
The people get the governmnet they deserve. That is democracy.
I basically agree with that statement. But there's the rub. The American people are getting the government they deserve, and it may be too late to do anything about it.
In considering whether America is a democracy or not, I think it is instructive to look at the corporate/military coup attempt against President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. This conspiracy was the work of wealthy businessmen, what today is often called the power elite, or what would become (with the permanent armaments industry borne of WWII) what President Eisenhower warningly called the military-industrial complex (MIC). (The MIC is also called, in its more fascistic light, the national security state.) How much has really changed in the American political system since the power elite power play of the 1930s?
The biggest players in the plot against FDR were the du Pont and J.P. Morgan financial empires. Obviously this power elite did not really believe in democracy. It didn’t believe in it then, so why should the power elite believe in it now? In the 1930s they were open admirers of fascism, as were some elected officials in Washington. In May 1932, David Reed, the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, stood on the Senate floor and said, “I do not often envy other countries and their governments, but I say that if this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now.” Such honesty changed, of course, during and after WWII, as the power elite could no longer openly admire fascism after fighting a highly profitable world war against somebody else’s brand of it.
The plot against FDR was simple. FDR would be given an ultimatum, to resign for health reasons, turning his duties over to a new position to be created, which would of course look out for the interests of the power elite. If he did not resign, he would be removed. And the coup probably would have succeeded, given the power of this fascist elite, had they not chosen the wrong man to lead it. They chose a retired Army general, Smedley Butler, because of his popularity with the troops, who might be needed if FDR did not resign. But the conspirators probably should have gone with their second choice, General Douglas McArthur, because while Butler, a two-time recipient of the Medal of Honor, may have been popular with the troops, he did not share the undemocratic views of the plotters. Butler for a time pretended to go along with the plot, but foiled it by betraying it to the Congress.
But though the plot was foiled, two significant things happened that tell us how much things haven’t changed. First, the Congress did not have the guts or independence to stand up to the power elite. Not a single one of the wealthy plotters was called to testify before Congressional investigators, except for the go-between Gerald Maguire of Wall Street, who had represented the plotters to Butler. The Congress protected the power elite after its attempted high treason. And second, the mainstream corporate media even in the 1930s was so controlled that it didn’t really cover the story. It was all supposedly nothing but rumors and gossip; the power elite, as far as America’s “watchdog” media was concerned, hadn’t really done anything wrong.
There was a successful MIC coup in 1963 in Dallas, against an independently wealthy president who was too far off the reservation, the MIC taking abrupt corrective action to redirect the course of national and world events (with the government and media saying a lone nut did it).
There was another coup in 2000, when the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which hardly anyone had even heard of, but whose members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, and whose published agenda of world domination through “the transformation of warfare” represents the MIC run amok, took over the federal government and promptly brought us 9/11, the PNAC’s wished-for “new Pearl Harbor” (with the government and media saying that a nut in an Afghan cave did it).
And do you know what? Five years after the PNAC coup, most Americans still haven’t heard of PNAC! Viewers of Fox News, for example, listen to regular news commentator William Kristol “of the Weekly Standard,” without even being made aware of the fact that Kristol is Chairman of PNAC. In other words Kristol is among the leaders of the current administration, he just doesn’t hold an official administration position. And Americans sit and listen to him as an “objective” commentator on what the administration is doing!
But I digress (though not really, as the ignorance of the American people, whatever the cause, is a major factor in the demise of their democracy). I see only one big difference between the power elite that wanted to set up a fascist government in America in the 1930s and the power elite today, which could set up such a government at virtually any time (all it would take is another 9/11 and martial law). The difference is, the power elite today, with the Pentagon (stealing taxpayer money a “lost” trillion dollars at a time) fully behind it, is far more powerful than the du Ponts and Morgans of the 1930s. And it will never be foiled again.
But let’s look at the bright side. Martial law may prove unnecessary, a pretense of democracy may continue to be maintained, thanks to a brand-new menace, masquerading as a boon, to democratic government. It was in 1961 that Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned the American people of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. It’s too bad that Ike wasn’t around in 2001 to warn us of the dangers of the electronic voting-machine industry. For the advent of electronic voting machines has simply made electoral fraud (which of course has always been with us in various forms) as easy as the click of a hacker’s mouse.
The leading manufacturer of these machines, complete with their software secrets, is Diebold, run by partisan members of the party that is now in power. And of course the Republicans, as the party in power, have the advantage over the Democrats in controlling the electoral process, using (how convenient) Republican-built voting machines. So the Republicans can perpetuate their power indefinitely by hacking out as many votes as they need, as they apparently did (at least in the decisive state of Ohio) in 2004 (the first national election in which there were enough of these new machines in use to make all the difference, no matter how much the Democrats tried to steal votes in old-fashioned ways).
I suspect that the Democrats consequently elected their last president, from here to eternity, in 1996. The Democrats know this but can’t do anything about it, so they don’t let on, because it’s not nice to fool with the Cheney regime (with or without Karl Rove). Hillary is already running for 2008 to keep America’s “democracy” show on the road, with Democratic office holders like Hillary thus always assured, in their role as the loyal opposition, of getting crumbs that fall from the Republican table.
And the American people don’t bat an eye at all this. To the people these newfangled voting machines (do they have them in Britain yet?) are just more wonderful signs of modern progress (no more old-timey paper ballots and hanging chads!), making it so much easier than in the old days to cast their votes and continue to think that they live in a democracy, instead of in a military/corporate oligarchy, functioning for the benefit above all of the power elite.
General Butler, by the way, published a book in 1935 entitled “War Is a Racket.” Here are the first three paragraphs of General Butler’s book, which can be read online:
“War is a racket. It always has been.
“It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Did General Butler have it right or what? The same thought was behind Ike’s farewell warning years later about the military-industrial complex. And it’s what the American government is running right now, a racket, thanks to the PNAC in power and its dream, a new Pearl Harbor, come true. (Talk about a coincidence! How lucky could they get?) And there’s not much that the American people can do about it, were they even inclined to try.
An interesting account of the history of American democracy. I am disturbed by your conclusion that “there’s not much that the American people can do about it, were they even inclined to try”. That suggests that America has ceased to be a democracy.
I myself have become very disillusioned with democracy over the last 30 years. When I was a young political activist in the 1960s I thought we could change the world. In a way I think we did. In the UK we got a whole range of progressive legislation passed between 1964-70. The same was true of the United States. For example the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s. I also think that young people helped bring an end to the Vietnam War.
The problems that we face today are in many ways far worse than those of the 1960s. Trying to persuade our politicians not to take part in a nuclear war was far easier than getting them to take action to bring an end to global warming.
I think the biggest difference between young people in the 1960s to those today is that we believed we could change the world. Without this belief you cannot do it as you are unable to maintain the motivation necessary. I still believe it is possible to change the world and that is why I spend so much time producing information that suggests we can. However, it can’t be done with old codgers like me. We need the young, with all their surplus energies, to get involved in this struggle. Yet so many are apathetic. I can understand that given the current situation. But it is a recipe for a new kind of fascism.
I have been concerned for example in the way that people have reacted to the calls by the UK government to curtail our civil liberties since the London bombing. Tony Blair tells the public that we cannot allow the terrorists to change our way of life. Yet he immediately talks about bringing in legislation that will do just that. The majority accept these measures. Not only that, the popularity of Blair since the bombing has gone up. Instead of people thinking that the bombing only took place because of Blair’s policy on Iraq, they embrace his “tough talking” and reward him with high poll ratings.
When I was in my late-teens, early-20s I too thought that we could change things. I think we probably did to some extent. Public opinion against the Vietnam War probably influenced US government policy – but it took a long time. In the UK, public opinion against the Poll Tax was probably effective. We even had a riotous demonstration outside Maidenhead Town Hall – yes, Maidenhead! You have to understand what kind of a genteel, middle-class, Conservative town Maidenhead is in order to appreciate what this meant. I got involved in local politics in my 30s and even stood for election on three occasions, but then I became disillusioned with the type of people that I met in local politics. Most of them were ambitious dickheads, regardless of their political persuasions, and only interested in making a name for themselves. So I got out of politics and concentrated on my career as a teacher in HE – and never looked back.
Now that I am retired, I find I don’t really care much about political ideologies. Democracy is just a concept that may or may not be implemented, depending on what a particular politician feels at the time, and most politicians, left or right, water it down as soon as they get into power. The difference between left and right in the UK is becoming blurred – as is already the case in the USA. Looking back on my life, I can’t recall a single government policy (whatever the colour of the government at the time) that made a significant change to my personal circumstances. I have always had a modest income, I have always paid more tax than I wanted to, but I had an excellent education, enjoyed a good career as a teacher and (which is especially important in my old age) I am on the whole satisfied with the care that the National Health Service has given to me. I have been in hospital on three occasions in the last two years for three totally unrelated problems, all of which have been resolved. I know that education and health are a bit of a lottery, depending on where one lives. I guess I have just been lucky enough to live in the right places.
I have now run out of energy. Walking my dog, playing the occasional round of golf and enjoying a swim at the local fitness centre are all that I have energy for these days. Let the youngsters keep up the political struggle. And - by the way - thanks to all you young guys and girls for paying my pension.
Now that I am retired, I find I don’t really care much about political ideologies. Democracy is just a concept that may or may not be implemented, depending on what a particular politician feels at the time, and most politicians, left or right, water it down as soon as they get into power. The difference between left and right in the UK is becoming blurred – as is already the case in the USA. Looking back on my life, I can’t recall a single government policy (whatever the colour of the government at the time) that made a significant change to my personal circumstances. I have always had a modest income, I have always paid more tax than I wanted to, but I had an excellent education, enjoyed a good career as a teacher and (which is especially important in my old age) I am on the whole satisfied with the care that the National Health Service has given to me. I have been in hospital on three occasions in the last two years for three totally unrelated problems, all of which have been resolved. I know that education and health are a bit of a lottery, depending on where one lives. I guess I have just been lucky enough to live in the right places.
I have now run out of energy. Walking my dog, playing the occasional round of golf and enjoying a swim at the local fitness centre are all that I have energy for these days. Let the youngsters keep up the political struggle. And - by the way - thanks to all you young guys and girls for paying my pension.
QUOTE
John Simkin: I myself have become very disillusioned with democracy over the last 30 years. When I was a young political activist in the 1960s I thought we could change the world. In a way I think we did. In the UK we got a whole range of progressive legislation passed between 1964-70. The same was true of the United States. For example the Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s. I also think that young people helped bring an end to the Vietnam War.
However, it can’t be done with old codgers like me. We need the young, with all their surplus energies, to get involved in this struggle. Yet so many are apathetic. I can understand that given the current situation. But it is a recipe for a new kind of fascism.
However, it can’t be done with old codgers like me. We need the young, with all their surplus energies, to get involved in this struggle. Yet so many are apathetic. I can understand that given the current situation. But it is a recipe for a new kind of fascism.
QUOTE
Graham Davies: Now that I am retired, I find I don’t really care much about political ideologies. Democracy is just a concept that may or may not be implemented, depending on what a particular politician feels at the time, and most politicians, left or right, water it down as soon as they get into power. The difference between left and right in the UK is becoming blurred – as is already the case in the USA. Looking back on my life, I can’t recall a single government policy (whatever the colour of the government at the time) that made a significant change to my personal circumstances.
I don't know what to say or think about these comments. I agree to a certain extent. It's easy to get disillusioned when you followed some party and/or specific group and saw that they "changed" (or you changed) to something you didn't expect. We have faced a longer period of blunt selfish global capitalism and unfortunately we see that many parties try to adjust to that. The more experienced you are the easier it is to give the more active campaigns a miss and resort to some calmer exrecises but at the same time it's a lot of your experience that's necessary for the continuation of the struggle against unlimited egoism. Your experience in invaluable and much desired among several of the groups that are active today. They need a living connection to the past struggle, lot's of advise and input and they need to understand that the old geezers still have ideals and ideas about the future. So try to give some groups your valuable time once in a while - I sure that it will be appreciated (and don't drop the old ideals - they are worth fighting for now more than ever!).
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.