News Why Does Democracy Work Despite Voter Apathy?

[Constantin]

Democracy has periodic elections, and that is a good way to reduce public tensions.
Whatever the majority elects, you have to live with for a certain term.

But democracy has many flaws and doesn't always work.
More important than democracy is the economic capitalist system. The opposite is the state run communist system which proved to be a dead end, and which now only exists in North Korea.

Democracy doesn't work well with poverty.
In the third world there's a large number of countries which are not democracies.

It also might not be best suited for large countries with plenty of internal problems, like Russia or China.
Russia has something in between democracy and dictatorship, while China has a single party non democratic system.
Both however are capitalist countries.

So, in conclusion, there's a large number of cases where democracy doesn't work, and a large number where it does.
As the users of this forum are mostly from democratic countries, we might have a biased opinion about it.

 

[CAC1001]

But democracy has many flaws and doesn't always work.
More important than democracy is the economic capitalist system. The opposite is the state run communist system which proved to be a dead end, and which now only exists in North Korea.

Pure democracy has flaws, but that's why beyond a town, you create a democratic system of government, but not a pure democracy.

Democracy doesn't work well with poverty.
In the third world there's a large number of countries which are not democracies.

It won't work well with poverty if the majority rule can usurp the rights of the minority. That's what happened in early America with the Articles of Confederation.

It also might not be best suited for large countries with plenty of internal problems, like Russia or China.
Russia has something in between democracy and dictatorship, while China has a single party non democratic system.
Both however are capitalist countries.

Well China I believe is about 2/3 socialist still, state-run enterprises with a government-run financial system. And the government can confiscate a business if they want to. But they have a market sector now as well. Russia is an example of a failed socialist state. They are "capitalist," but not any liberal democracy or thriving market economy, and there's a lot of state intervention in their economy as well.

 

[Functor97]

Are the US, Canada, GB really democracies? I mean they sure have democratic 'elements', but contrast it with the Athenian Ekklesia and i think you will find quite a difference. Citizens cannot vote individually, we have representative, representatives who often take their own view or the view of the wealth minority.

Listen to how many citizens of America want change, but how few politicians embrace it. There is a serious flaw with our current conception of democracy.

 

[CAC1001]

Are the US, Canada, GB really democracies? I mean they sure have democratic 'elements', but contrast it with the Athenian Ekklesia and i think you will find quite a difference. Citizens cannot vote individually, we have representative, representatives who often take their own view or the view of the wealth minority.

Listen to how many citizens of America want change, but how few politicians embrace it. There is a serious flaw with our current conception of democracy.

The alternative though would be a pure democracy, which IMO is a scary thought.

 

[Functor97]

The alternative though would be a pure democracy, which IMO is a scary thought.

I understand what you mean. But to me, it can't get much worse. We have evangelicals trying to implement creationism into classrooms, and in many parts of America they have allready suceeded. I don't buy any of the "founded under god" agenda, and this transformation has seemed to be a result of the beliefs of individual politicians and power brokers. If democracy were a more dynamic process, it would be harder to sink down these roots of control. I understand the downside would involve rule by the masses but i cannot see a agenda being substantuated in the long run if the vast majority of the public were decision makers.
Also i believe, wars would be significantly shorter and more objective based. I do not like the fact that the public has very little control over the military. I think that the commercial opportunity of war would be downplayed for the moral agenda which we would all be a part of.

 

[CAC1001]

Anything larger than a town has to have a representative democracy, or there'd be no way to govern. A democratic system must be structured to protect the majority from the minority and the minority from the majority.

 

[Functor97]

Anything larger than a town has to have a representative democracy, or there'd be no way to govern. A democratic system must be structured to protect the majority from the minority and the minority from the majority.

I would assume that the internet changes all that. I see no reason (besides ideaology) why a "perfect" democracy would be intangible in the next 100 years, even for a country as large as the United States.

 

[truman]

I agree with CAC1001, and there also is the answer to the OP. If the masses really did control the US (and that's how things have been heading), you'd have the mess we are in now. The worst possible outcome for the US would be control by Facebook. The OP was correct when he alluded to idiots and ignorants running the show. But, we've watered down our representative democracy over the course of 200 years and now have almost-direct election of the President (used to be done by state Senates), mandatory-minimum sentencing, elected judges, and other follies. And a big mess.

BTW Alexander Hamilton expressed dire concern over control by the mob, and it's him you can largely thank for keeping our experiment from toppling over much quicker than it appears to be doing right now.

Long term, I envision a return to a more representative form of government. Don't ask me how that will happen.

Oh yeah, here's why it has to happen. Because if it doesn't, we're screwed.

 

[jennex05]

Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.That's probably why it works

 

[ThomasT]

Democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.That's probably why it works

Come now, the US is not an example of government of, by, and for the people. It's, essentially, an oligarchy -- government of, by, and for the rich. But the US is incredibly weathy. So, there's lots to go around, and virtually the entire population lives in relative comfort.

It has little to do with 'democracy', imo.

 

[shashankac655]

But democracy has many flaws and doesn't always work.
More important than democracy is the economic capitalist system. The opposite is the state run communist system which proved to be a dead end, and which now only exists in North Korea.

Democracy doesn't work well with poverty.
In the third world there's a large number of countries which are not democracies.

It also might not be best suited for large countries with plenty of internal problems, like Russia or China.
Russia has something in between democracy and dictatorship, while China has a single party non democratic system.
Both however are capitalist countries.

So, in conclusion, there's a large number of cases where democracy doesn't work, and a large number where it does.
As the users of this forum are mostly from democratic countries, we might have a biased opinion about it.

And my conclusion is the same ,even India has internal problems.
naxals
A democratic government is too sympathetic ,it can't take quick and sharp actions in case of internal security and maintaining unity.

The reason why China is so successful is because it could force people out of agriculture and into Industry and manufacturing and so the income levels came up,where as in India you have to persuade people ,that doesn't always works because you can't reason with uneducated people.

 

[lpetrich]

I think that democracy works because it offers ways of defusing political tensions. Without democracy, one has such alternatives as revolution or heavyhanded repression.

Republics can very from a democratic republic (representative democracy) to an oligarchic republic, like the former Republic of Venice and most Communist countries.

Republicanism is sometimes contrasted with monarchy, but there are part-republic and part-monarchy systems, usually a monarch coexisting with an elected council or legislature. Several present-day "monarchies" may better be described as crowned republics, republics in just about everything but name. The monarchs and royal families are essentially professional socialites and professional celebrities.