Well, speaking of Athenian democracy, the answer of course is that it’s absolutely impossible anywhere in the modern world, and nobody really has any interest in it anymore (except the demagogues and assorted rubble-rousers).
To repeat after Timchik, formally Russia has an independent judiciary, which may, - given enough time,- establish itself as influential as in the US. Such things take long time. So far, there is no John Marshall anywhere in sight. Certainly, there is practically nothing resembling the Rule of Law in Russia nowadays.
I don’t think American people are all that interested in Democracy, either. American system is not really based on Democracy and Freedom; it’s based on Law and Order. Americans (wisely) follow the rules and enjoy the blessings of living in orderly state, such as free press and so on. Russians have few rules and innate desire to break all of them, which leads to protracted periods of Autocracy, occasionally broken by Bunt (uprising) and Smuta (times of trouble).
Yes . . . But whether the Athenian democracy can really be traced to Solon is debatable. Most authorities date it from Cleisthenes. And the system notably lacked a set of specialized career judges, whose decisions might have precedential effect in interpretation of the constitution or the law. Judges, like other public officials, were chosen by lot and served for short terms. And the Assembly was not bound by a fixed constitution set above its own authority; it could do practically anything it liked if the votes could be mustered.
Athenians still had the revered Constitution and they had venerated Laws, “written onto special wooden cylinders and placed in the Acropolis”.
When I spoke of ‘independent judiciary’, I didn’t mean a caste of career judges. What is indespensable for Democracy is a code of Laws and popular consent to abide by them. Perhaps in their best times, the Athenians managed such a feat by the popular assembly of citizens that were wise enough to agree on the best measures for the common good.
Just recently, Schwarzenegger tried to let people to decide directly on his initiatives in California. Funny thing, so called Democrats were extremely critical of the whole idea.
I was in Russia 2 years ago and there was bread and most other things that are available in the West. Even Cherry Coke which is not available here in Australia.
But things are not very affordable compared to Western countries. Prices seem low until you realise that many people only earn the equivalent of US $100 per month. Often less.
From what I observed most younger people liked the new freedom but most older people longed for a return to the Soviet era. There are still statues of Lenin in the town I visited (Tomsk in Siberia).
For middle class people in India, things are very affordable, especially services. The standard of living for middle class Indians is, in my opinion, higher than here in the United States.
:dubious: IANA Californian, but based on such news coverage as I saw, they were critical of the content of the proposals. (And the voters ultimately agreed.) And if your opponent puts forth something you find objectionable in a legislature, you try to bottle it up in committee; if your opponent proposes a referendum on it, you try to block the referendum. That’s routine politics. But it’s not the same thing as being opposed to representative democracy in the one case or direct democracy in the other.
Interesting that such a principle has never been part either of American democracy or modern western democracy in general.
The California initiative process is a political and administrative nightmare and more than anything else it’s an opportunity for hucksters to confuse voters with numerous often incompatible poorly or misleadingly worded propositions.
Have you ever tried to read a California ballot? To vote responsibly would take hours of reading and a further several hundred hours of instruction and analysis.
It’s also a way for elected officials to escape accountability.
Using Democrats’ opposition to the initiative process, especially as it was used by Schwarzenegger to insinuate that they are opposed to democratic principles is intellectually dishonest and it’s demagoguery, nothing less.
Hardly scientific evidence, but from my trip to Ukraine last year, during the standoff over the elections, my understanding is that the younger people are very much in favor of democracy and enjoy the ‘western’ style of living. It is the elderly, who have had their pensions shrivel up and/or disappear, that longed for the days of the security of communism. Bread lines were no fun, but the elderly could at least afford bread back then.
Nitpick: When you use the word “democratic” to refer to anything other than the candidates, leaders or policies of the Democratic Party, you should spell it with a lower-case “d.”
Ah, so when we’re talking about at least three different uses of the word “democratic,” one of them being a proper name, and one of them having to be qualified by the words “true” or “direct,” it seems that the Democratic party’s opposition to referenda might not really be a “funny thing” after all, then. In fact, in context, it might make complete sense.