I enjoyed reading thru this informative debate. Ancient Greece doesn’t qualify as the democracy (or republic) that existed BCE was conquered by the Romans, who also had a form of democracy, although with a caesar, which, of course, doesn’t exist now.
However, let’s get technical on the terms. Criminals, per se, are not disenfranchised in the USA. Only convicted felons. Some miscreants are also criminals. And as far as being governed by babies, come January 20, we will have one as our leader.
Let’s not confuse terms. A democracy is a form of government in which a substantial portion of the ruled subjects vote. There are various forms of democracy, from the ‘democracy’ of Athens to the ‘democracy’ of the United States. While the term originally meant total government by the people, no one really questions the idea that its current meaning includes a form of government such as we practice here.
A republic is a form of government where the right to govern derives from an inherent right of the people to govern themselves. This is as opposed to forms like monarchy, where the right to govern is inherently vested in the king/queen, who may then, should he or she choose, agree to vest some of it in various subjects. The United States is a republic, and each of the states is required, by the Constitution, to provide republican governments to the citizens of the United States. England remains a monarchy, albeit a democratic monarchy.
There is nothing inherently ‘free’ about a democracy, nor does the concept inherently include ‘choice’. Mexico was a one-party democracy for years, a fact ignored by this country while it at the same time raved incoherently at times about the one-party ‘democracy’ practiced in the Soviet Union.
You’re quite correct. It’s always refreshing to hear from someone who knows the difference between a democracy and a republic.
The U.S.A. is a democracy and a republic. Great Britain is a democracy, but not a republic. The Soviet Union was a republic, but not a democracy.
I would also like to add in my two cents about “pure” democracies: I think they’re evil. There is no worse form of tyranny than a pure democracy. Hell, I’d rather live under a dictator than in purely democratic society any day of the week. (Yea, yea, I know. GD, GD, GD…)
Interesting thesis. Do you have any actual evidence for this claim? The only well-documented ‘pure’ democracy in history, the ancient Athenians, were remarkably socially and politically stable, espectally considering their extremely dangerous neighborhood (Sparta, Persia, Makedonia…). The only serious internal disturbance during their era of pure democracy was the Spartian-backed coup that raised the ‘thirty’ to power, which was eventually defeated by the Athenian citizens themselves.
As for the ‘quality of life’ during that time, remember that Athens was a relatively small city, possibly 20 000 people, and yet that small city supported so many of the great scientists, philosophers, playwrites, etc. of the ancient era, from all over the Greek world. Why was that so? Because it was universally recognised in its time as the best place around for the ‘higher’ activities. An mob-ruled state of anarchy would not be such a place.
So why does ‘pure’ democracy have such a bad reputation?
I personally think that it is because the only ancient writers known at the time of the US constitution, especially Plato, were totally anti-democratic and pro-aristocratic in their politics, with their ideal of rulers raised from birth for the position, and the ‘common’ people kept in ignorance. When more balanced accounts of the time were discovered, it was too late. The idea that pure democracy was nothing but ‘mob rule’ had hardened like concrete. In my personal opinion, this historical accident is one of the great tragedies of the modern era.
Bill
P.S. I feel like a lone voice on this board about this. I have made similar statements in the past, to a resounding silence. Maybe I should deny the Holocaust here; at least I’d get a response!
[plea]Well, maybe somebody will read this and actually stop to consider the idea, do some research (go here, and read the site’s e-book ‘Leviathan’ for much more detail), and realise that the current political structure is far poorer that it needs to be. [/plea]
Groundskeeper Willie writes:
Well, this happens not to be the case.
Assuming that the Athenian Revolution (that rather bloody affair in which Kleisthenes defeated Isogoras and killed his adherents) is too early to be considered, and that such policy disasters as the Sicilian Expedition, the breakup of the Second (or Third) Naval League, and the Social War are excluded as partly external, we still have the mutilation of the Herm in 415, and the oligarchic revolution and democratic counter-revolutions of 411-410/409 (the murder of Ephialtes was undoubtedly intended as the prelude to another period of instability, but Perikles took too firm control).
Akatsukami, you’re quite right. I would add, however, that the events of 415-409 took place in the context of a terrible grinding war with a bitter ideological foe, where both sides were convinced that their very survival lay in the destruction of the other side. A close modern parallel would be the Russo-German war of 1941-45. In addition, the disturbances were primarily initiated by a ‘fifth column’ of aristocratic supporters who were sympathetic to the Spartans. Recall that 1950’s America, during a much less bitter ‘Cold War’, allowed the excesses of ‘McCartheyism’.(sp?)
Bill
Sorry to take you off on a tangent like this, but…
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by peace *
** BTW, AFAIK, the U.S. is one of the first countries with bi-sexual electorate: the French women were granted the right in 1960.*
[QUOTE]
(Ignoring the obvious joke…) The Americans were indeed one of the first countries to grant women the right to vote in national elections. Right after New Zealand, Australia, Finland, Norway, Soviet Russia, Canada, Germany, Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia (source).
Actually, I personally don’t have an issue with even “serious” felons being given the right to vote. Are we putting these people in prison to punish them, or to rehabilitate them and bring them into mainstream society?
I would not characterize the mutilation of the hermai as a major social disturbance. It was a sacriligeous, juvenile prank that went entirely too far, if it even happened in the first place. It only became a major disturbance because it was pinned on Alcibiades.
As for the oligarchic and democratic counter-revolutions, consider their context. The Athenian democracy simply was not functioning at maximum efficiency, as it were. It is a testament to the resiliency of Greek democracy that the revolutions and the accompanying recovery periods were so swift.
MR
Regardless whether pure democracy suffered from bad press in 1787, the direct democracy is simply not workable in a large country such as the U.S. Pure democracy, like pure communism, can probably be achieved on a fairly small scale. (In fact, there are probably a few examples laying about of small communist democracies among some religious groups, if no where else.)
However, allowing 270,000,000 people to collectively decide on every issue that may come before the country (especially when there is ample evidence that many of them do not take the time to understand issues beyond the sound bite level), is simply mind-boggling.
Let’s take a fairly neutral (i.e., not currently partisan) issue. Would the populace set the policies for allowing natural burns in forests (or the policies for creating controlled burns where we have suppressed fires for 90 years)? After the Yellowstone fire of a couple of years ago, there was immense “citzen pressure” to outlaw any natural burns. The press completely abandoned their role as news-providers and jumped in with the sensationalism of the Forest Service simply letting this national treasure go up in flames. Similar reactions could be found among the media and the populace after this summer’s New Mexico controlled burns. Yet, now we have clear evidence that the Yellowstone fire was exactly the boon predicted by the people who allowed the burn and the Los Alamos burn was not bad policy, but a violation of regulations by the group the started the burn.
Are the citizens “smart” enough to determine the big picture? Absolutley. Are the citizens “wise” enough to not act precipitously if there were not the glacially moving congress interposed between the choices and the decisions, thus allowing the facts to sort themselves out before the actions are implemented? I do not believe it. Even congress gets stampeded (by citizen pressure) on issues such as Alar. How much more quickly would we need to repent hasty decisions if everyone chose a series of issues to decide each night and hit a button with their selection.
Yes, the third smallest country seems to hold the record.
Maeglin:I had an unfortunate and protracted argument with someone on soc.history.ancient who insisted that Athens was not a democracy because it did not conform with our modern standards. This is not an error I hope to see repeated here.
Duuuuude…let’s not go there.
How can we reconcile these two statesments? Or did I misread you?
What was the first coutry with universal suffrage?
And how behind were we?
Thank you, Peace.
Admit it, everyone, I nailed it.
There were democracies during the Grecian Age in many city states. Yes, they usually lasted only a decade or so, until the need for an army arose, and a Strong Man to lead it.
However, that’s not a reason to dismiss their importance.
Alexander the Great only was great for 8 years, and during that time he had left and never returned home.
So the number of years is not the issue, nor the territorial boundries, but the fact that they kept reappearing.
That depends on what you mean by universal. Here are a few requirements to choose from : gender, race, wealth, age, criminal record, citizenship etc.
The U.S. ratified female suffrage in 1920, IIRC. The earliest I can think of is Finland (1906).
As a matter of fact, prisoners are entitled to vote in Ireland as of this year. We don’t have a concept of “felons”, and the number of prisoners is only around 2,000 in 4,000,000, so it’s not a big deal.
I mentioned that the U.S. was one of the first countries to allow women to vote (“bi-sexual”) and that enlightened France did so much later. Maeglin did not like that. As it turned out, I was correct. Are women allowed to vote in Ireland? Since when? Before the criminals?
All criminals, including murderers, pimps and embezlers, disregard the law. But somehow they want that one of them, namely the Election law, include them. Why? The society went an extra mile and created the whole separate and exclusive book for them, called “Penal Code”. The society did not push criminals from one of its books to another, the criminals chose “Penal Code” volunrtarily. Why the grudge?