Why does democracy work so well?

[MaxManus]

Read Matthew Yglesias
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/09/09/198475/why-does-democracy-work-so-well/

And was wondering if you had some thoughts about why democracy work so well. Most people are in my opinion not smart enough and interested enough in politics to vote. But somehow it works.

If someone has a good link or book, please post.

 

[phyzguy]

If you think democracy works so well, you must not be paying attention to the antics of the US Congress these days!

 

[MaxManus]

LOL
As an European I must admit that I find USA strange, but even if you get a lot of bad laws in a democracy it often works out anyway. USA is still one of the richest countries on Earth in income/capita and they have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in a decade.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think the real question is "works so well" compared to what? I think when we look at systems of governments that aren't democratic, it's obvious not why democracy works so well; it's obvious why non-democratic countries DON'T work so well. By definition, something only works well if it can be compared favorably to other systems.

 

[phillipx]

If you think democracy works so well, you must not be paying attention to the antics of the US Congress these days!

Hahaha!

And just look at the meteoric rise of China. Democracy may have created the conditions that allowed us to get where we are, but that doesn't mean this progress can't be co-opted and done better by a non-democratic entity.

 

[mheslep]

Read Matthew Yglesias
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/20...-work-so-well/

Read a blogger for an answer to an age old question?

Federalist #10, Madison:

... it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
[...]

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
...

 

[russ_watters]

In the US, it was made virtually idiot-proof.

 

[AlephZero]

In the US, it was made virtually idiot-proof.

The trick is to set up the system so the idiots think they are running the show, but everbody else can ignore then.

 

[russ_watters]

And just look at the meteoric rise of China. Democracy may have created the conditions that allowed us to get where we are, but that doesn't mean this progress can't be co-opted and done better by a non-democratic entity.

We should put the China issue on hold and revist it in 20 or 30 years. China's 'working as well' as western democracies, in terms of the quality of life of the people is still too far off to even predict when or if it will happen.

 

[russ_watters]

The trick is to set up the system so the idiots think they are running the show, but everbody else can ignore then.

I don't see that "idiot" is the right word. If you can vote yourself more services, and vote that someone else has to pay for them, that's a pretty great deal.

 

[MarcoD]

If you think democracy works so well, you must not be paying attention to the antics of the US Congress these days!

Neither the US or the Eurozone democracies can, at the moment, claim that they're handling financial matter that good. In the top of China, the fast majority holds an engineering degree; one could call it a state-led technocracy. I prefer democracy myself, but there isn't a good reason to assume that a technocracy can't outperform a democracy.

 

[russ_watters]

Huh? Could you please cite that education stat...

 

[phyzguy]

Neither the US or the Eurozone democracies can, at the moment, claim that they're handling financial matter that good. In the top of China, the fast majority holds an engineering degree; one could call it a state-led technocracy. I prefer democracy myself, but there isn't a good reason to assume that a technocracy can't outperform a democracy.

Uhh - what? No way do 'the vast majority hold an engineering degree'. Here's an article on engineering graduates in China:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901760.html

If you accept that they turn out about 350,000 engineering graduates per year, with a working career of 30 years, that amounts to about 10 million working engineers, which is less than 1% of their 1.3 billion population.

 

[MarcoD]

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/05/19/0219254/8-of-Chinas-Top-9-Govt-Officials-Are-Engineers"

 

[daveb]

Karl Smith is fascinated “by the fact that Democracy seems to be a highly effective form of government despite an almost necessary implication that policy will be determined, or at least largely influenced, by the least knowledgeable and indeed least policy interested people in society – swing voters.”

I actually think swing voters are more informed than those who simply vote the party line (not that a party line voter can't be informed, I just think a swing voter is more apt to be informed).

 

[MaxManus]

I think the real question is "works so well" compared to what? I think when we look at systems of governments that aren't democratic, it's obvious not why democracy works so well; it's obvious why non-democratic countries DON'T work so well. By definition, something only works well if it can be compared favorably to other systems.

Agree, and I'm not well informed enough to compare democracies with other forms of government(with benevolent rulers). But what I was thinking about was that most people are idiots and some how the collective decision of all the idiots doesn't turn out as bad as one could imagine.

 

[CAC1001]

No system works "well" so much as it's what systems function the least badly. For example, socialists oftentimes love to point out all the flaws of market capitalism (stock market bubbles, corporate corruption, etc...). But no one claims market capitalism works flawlessly. It's that, in comparison to the other systems, it is the system that works the least badly.

 

[CAC1001]

Hahaha!

And just look at the meteoric rise of China. Democracy may have created the conditions that allowed us to get where we are, but that doesn't mean this progress can't be co-opted and done better by a non-democratic entity.

What makes you think that China is doing the progress of the Western world better? The country is ripe with corruption on a monumental scale and they do not have the protections of private property, freedom, regulations on pollution and worker safety, building safety standards, etc...that we have in the United States.

 

[mheslep]

...Most people are in my opinion not smart enough and interested enough in politics to vote.

I first took the OP to be solely a historical question, best answered by historical reference. On further reflection of the OP and the links I see more there. I hear the old totalitarian impulse rising up from the statists who, when observing popular sentiment strongly against the One True Agenda, can only conclude popular sentiment is stupid and requires a strong hand to place it in check. The bloggers (Drum, Smith) and OP are not alone:

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that," Perdue said. "You want people who don't worry about the next election."

Too Much of a Good Thing
Why we need less democracy

...This is why I believe that we need to jettison the Civics 101 fairy tale about pure representative democracy and instead begin to build a new set of rules and institutions that would make legislative inertia less detrimental to our nation’s long-term health.
...
What we need, then, are ways around our politicians.
...
Finally, a significant part of the response to polarization and gridlock must involve creating more independent institutions.

Hopefully this is just another cycle and not a trend. In the 1920's and 30's there were many singing the praises of Mussolini in the US, seemingly at every other desk in the FDR administration.

 

[Alfi]

If you accept that they turn out about 350,000 engineering graduates per year, with a working career of 30 years, that amounts to about 10 million working engineers, which is less than 1% of their 1.3 billion population.

vs.
the U.S. graduates only 70000 engineers a year,

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051223_7594_db039.htm


350.000 is a big number. trying to make it less significant by making it a percent of population does not make it a lesser number.

 

[Char. Limit]

vs.
the U.S. graduates only 70000 engineers a year,

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051223_7594_db039.htm


350.000 is a big number. trying to make it less significant by making it a percent of population does not make it a lesser number.

The post that this was a reply to said that the majority of the Chinese population was engineers. You completely missed the point of the post.

 

[Khichdi lover]

what are your views on India as a democracy ?
I am from India. In India one of the biggest problems is low literacy rates.
Because of that majority of people cast their votes based on issues such as religion,caste,language,etc.
Very rarely are issues such as corruption or non-performace the criteria.Unless and until the poor of India are educated , the democracy won't function well.

A large section of the middle class is dissatisfied by the state of things and are asking for an ombudsman to probe corruption cases. Many see this as anti-democratic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Lokpal_Bill#Extra-constitutional

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Lokpal_BillOf course, the democratic institutions of India are pretty firmly established. But the question is how well is India doing as a democracy.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Uhh - what? No way do 'the vast majority hold an engineering degree'. Here's an article on engineering graduates in China:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901760.html

If you accept that they turn out about 350,000 engineering graduates per year, with a working career of 30 years, that amounts to about 10 million working engineers, which is less than 1% of their 1.3 billion population.

He meant at the "top" of china, their leaders, most of them are in fact engineers.
If you consider the general population, most chinese are peasants.

Oh, and I'm in favor of democracy, but I think one of the problems of today politicians is that most of them come from a background like law that doesn't give them a clue about administrating a country.

 

[MarcoD]

He meant at the "top" of china, their leaders, most of them are in fact engineers.
If you consider the general population, most chinese are peasants.

Oh, and I'm in favor of democracy, but I think one of the problems of today politicians is that most of them come from a background like law that doesn't give them a clue about administrating a country.

Yah, that's the thing. Say you have a largely peasant population of well over a billion, what system would you prefer to get out of the morass? I am not in favor of dictatorial regimes, or even socialism, but a state-led technocracy really isn't that bad an option given the problems they have.

(I think you can call it a state-led technocracy since in ideological term, the current form of maoism has nothing in common anymore with old maoism or communism/marxism. It's a form of socialism though, they are certainly not willing (yet) to embrace capitalism to its fullest.)

Moreover, I wonder what the average Chinese thinks of his or her government. My best guess is that the average isn't even that opposed to the current regime, as long as it can sell that it works towards better financial, economic, and civil conditions, and the 'usual' goal for Chinese, world domination. Or at least being the dominant factor in their part of the world.

 

[CAC1001]

Moreover, I wonder what the average Chinese thinks of his or her government. My best guess is that the average isn't even that opposed to the current regime, as long as it can sell that it works towards better financial, economic, and civil conditions,

From what I understand, right now, most Chinese are okay with what their government is doing, but I think that will change big time when the economy tanks at some point in the future.

and the 'usual' goal for Chinese, world domination. Or at least being the dominant factor in their part of the world.

China has never been about world domination. They have always been a rather isolated peoples. China does want to be the dominant power in Asia though.

 

[DoggerDan]

From what I understand, right now, most Chinese are okay with what their government is doing...

Not the ones I've talked to. Even those have been told the Chinese gov't has spies everywhere, and that if they bad-mouth the government while vacationing over here, it won't go well for their families.

It's not that they're "okay" with their government. It's that they're silent about it.

 

[WhoWee]

Not the ones I've talked to. Even those have been told the Chinese gov't has spies everywhere, and that if they bad-mouth the government while vacationing over here, it won't go well for their families.

It's not that they're "okay" with their government. It's that they're silent about it.

Perhaps they're optimistic that things are moving in the right direction - that is towards Democracy?

Actually, that could explain why the US is - IMO - not happy now as we're slowly drifting away from individual freedom.

 

[DoggerDan]

Perhaps they're optimistic that things are moving in the right direction - that is towards Democracy?

I think few of them possesses the illusion that the ruling powers will cede their power enough to establish a working form of Democracy. The PRC may contain the word "Republic," but there's only one party in China: The Communist Party of China (CPC). They maintain a fairly iron grip, silencing dissent at will.

Still, there's some hope, as there's a division in the government. While some don't want change, some, like Premier Wen, keep working towards change. So, who knows? Time will tell.

Actually, that could explain why the US is - IMO - not happy now as we're slowly drifting away from individual freedom.

Isn't that our own fault for relinquishing it to those who would gladly step in and try to further control our lives? The temptation to "improve" things by controlling what others can and cannot see and hear, is the first step towards eliminating individual freedom. For example, It's one thing to remove foul language from a post or extinguish behaviors distasteful or repugnant to the majority of society. It's quite another to remove a post or an entire thread, or ban a behavior such as coloring one's hair purple simply because it's contrary to your own world view.

Those who would do so are as much the problem as are those who allow them to get away with it.

 

[shashankac655]

what are your views on India as a democracy ?
I am from India. In India one of the biggest problems is low literacy rates.
Because of that majority of people cast their votes based on issues such as religion,caste,language,etc.
Very rarely are issues such as corruption or non-performace the criteria.Unless and until the poor of India are educated , the democracy won't function well.

A large section of the middle class is dissatisfied by the state of things and are asking for an ombudsman to probe corruption cases. Many see this as anti-democratic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Lokpal_Bill#Extra-constitutional

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Lokpal_Bill


Of course, the democratic institutions of India are pretty firmly established. But the question is how well is India doing as a democracy.

I think India will hold the answer for the question ,if India becomes a developed country within the 21st century(in the 2nd half ,atleast), it will the biggest blow to those who think democracy doesn't work ,if it doesn't happen then the model of China may be called as the best form government for developing countries.

 

[shashankac655]

Indian democracy ,Chinese autocracy

 

[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.