What is Democracy, is Democracy Possible?

[Holiday20310401]

Democracy is obviously a misconnected term. I’ve asked so many people in my class, my family, the populace; what is democracy? And none of them reply with what democracy is, just ‘seeming’ qualities “unleashed” by it. I never did get a reply of a political definition. In fact, I don’t think anyone when they think about the word democracy actually thinks about the concept politically. It seems to be completely skewed into this social enigma to people in that at the same time of conceiving the greatness of our western demos, ( ), we always complain, and our apathy remains along side it like the hypocrites that we all are.

I mean, I was amazed when only a few related to the voting process, and I heard the stereotypical statement that democracy is for the people by the people. Well, I’m sure that was given some thought :sarcasm:. The definition alone does not stem out of the fact that it is the common people have the say. You’ve probably read this too much already but, demos means common people, and cracy refers to the government or the rule; therefore it is the common people who rule. In a democracy that is, pseudo democracy is a tactical and elitist evoking, very subtle way of tainting the perhaps possible pure conceptual form of democracy that we should have.

Because democracy seems to be more than a political definition, it is a social concept too. And this social concept appears to be the result of itself, which nobody bothers to point out how this can be empirically proven. I mean, we have the freedom to vote (which few attributed of democracy ironically… well maybe not), and then there seems to be a huge atmosphere of “freedom” and other such virtues evoked by democracy, especially in contrst of the third world nations in which media depicts the negativity, the vile, the cruelty, the lesser freedom that is preached outside of this western demos. The idea that the political concept/definition comes with or evokes these qualities that makes us seem superior (and by “seem” I talk ideologically especially) is rather presumptuous since nobody is willing to actually think about what it is that progresses us to make these claims. Why should a voting system evoke all these “fuzzy” (in humble respect to the conceptions of others) principles. I don’t see the common people ruling as being contributory to media, technology, etc. Yes of course there is some influence, but its intentions are indifferent nonetheless.

So, is true democracy possible? Depends. If it’s a political definition then yes of course, we have the minimum requirement of being able to claim such an irrelevancy. If it’s the social concept then no I do not believe so. It would be like the absurdity of saying theodemocracy exists. In what way would that matter then?

Any thoughts, ideas, or arguments?

[sarek]

Democracy is a much more down to earth concept than most idealists would have it. It is no more than a partially successful method for putting the highest authority at the lowest level.
A truer form of democracy is IMHO only achievable through the instrument of a referendum.

Why do I think democracy is a superior system from the social POV? Well, I am a believer in the potentially beneficial effects of complex systems with their emergent properties.
Instituting a democratic system vastly increases the potential number of decision-making interactions and events thus increasing the complexity of the system. It will give said system more options for change and more degrees of freedom. It will be less predictable.

I have come across ecological theories which claim that all ecosystems will strive to increase their complexity to the maximum amount possible, just before the point of falling into chaos.
I can see parallels in society and in the political system. It is trying to become more complicated. Witness also the increase in the number of supranational entities.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Democracy is a system of collective self-government where all individuals have equal access to government decision making.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Democracy is a system of collective self-government where all individuals have equal access to government decision making.

Exactly! So is it right to use the propoganda of the false "concept" of democracy as mutual to the practical definition that you just gave to get the support of populaces? As if to somehow convince the public that if we have the definition you just gave, then we have the concept as well.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Exactly! So is it right to use the propoganda of the false "concept" of democracy as mutual to the practical definition that you just gave to get the support of populaces? As if to somehow convince the public that if we have the definition you just gave, then we have the concept as well.

I am not quite sure what you are asking.

Are you referring to using the propaganda of the romanticized view of democracy rather than promoting a concrete view of what conceptually democracy actually is?

or

Are you referring to using the concept of democracy as it should be (equal access) to shield what democracy has generally become (oligarchy).

I believe neither are correct, but here in America (as with most countries I surmise) we have mastered the art of using false history and politics to make ourselves feel really good about a situation that could be much better.

[xris]

Secular democracy is better than the democracy we see in most western countries..its an impefect system thats preferable to any other form of goverment..not unless you had me as leader of a totalitarian goverment..

[Mr. Fight the Power]

If you were the leader of a totalitarian government over me, I would do my best to assassinate you.

[xris]

is that becauseyou dont believe in totalitarian goverment whatever its individual worth ?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by xris

is that becauseyou dont believe in totalitarian goverment whatever its individual worth ?

Yes. The idea of the philosopher king is ludicrous and dangerous.

A society is the aggregation of millions of individual wills and actions, and no man could ever, ever come to an understanding of it.

In my opinion, if one ever comes to a position of power over another, not to mention political power over the whole of society, that person has a moral obligation to relieve himself or herself of power. If this is not done, I consider it my moral right to relieve him or her of this power and to punish them for wrongdoings.

I am Mr. Fight the Power, after all.

[xris]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Yes. The idea of the philosopher king is ludicrous and dangerous.

A society is the aggregation of millions of individual wills and actions, and no man could ever, ever come to an understanding of it.

In my opinion, if one ever comes to a position of power over another, not to mention political power over the whole of society, that person has a moral obligation to relieve himself or herself of power. If this is not done, I consider it my moral right to relieve him or her of this power and to punish them for wrongdoings.

I am Mr. Fight the Power, after all.

AHH but we are in the philosophers world of makebelieve...i am a benevolent ruler ,all my subjects have individual freedoms that live in luxury, freemedical care,no wars and most of all i have implemented a zero emmisions on all transport..nature and the environment are a priority..iam almost the benevolent god...now would you kill me and why have you not been killing lately?... are you full of promises and not much action or are you to stuck in the philosphers world..