A lot of noise has recently been made about how noble it is for the US to be bringing democracy to Iraq. Let’s take a look at that widely espoused governmental system that we call democracy.
Does democracy keep the government honest?
I think not.
Democracy means essentially, government by the people. Is the American government a “government by the people?” Hardly. For a start, less than half bother to vote. One could argue, “Well it is their fault that they don’t vote.” I would argue that half simply recognize the futility in voting.
Who chooses the candidates that the people vote for? A candidate will never be able to run for any significant office like the President or a Senate seat unless he/she has considerable financial backing. Except in the rare case where a super-rich candidate funds his own campaign, the candidates are funded by the top few percentage of wealthy individuals, either through personal donations or through their corporations. So therefore, the candidates are chosen by those who fund the election campaigns. Translation: The wealthy elites hand-pick who the masses get to vote for.
The wealthy don’t get to be wealthy by wasting money. Those with money don’t donate money; they invest money. Do you think that the wealthy would contribute to election campaigns if they didn’t think they would get a return on their money? I don’t think so.
It is not a conspiracy. It is just plain business. If a politician shows that he is willing to compromise corporate and banking interests by his actions and proclamations, then that politician will have a short career. No campaign contributor will touch him. If a politician shows a penchant for protecting the interests of big-business (no matter the expense or imposition to Joe Average) then he will be a popular guy with the wealthy campaign contributors.
So when you show up at the polls, you have a choice between two candidates that have been screened and approved by the corporate and banking heavy-weights that are not interested in the common folk, except perhaps where it effects the consumer confidence index. Is it really any wonder that less than half bother to turn out and vote these days? And does democracy really keep the government honest?
Nice critique of Democracy. Care to offer an alternative?
Also, I’d argue that many people don’t vote because they are pretty much OK with either candidate, not that they “recognize the futility in voting”. If anyone has poll data on this, I’d be curious-- although it would be somewhat ironic to have poll data on that, no?
I should have made it clear that I don’t see any better system in place on Earth. It doesn’t make for a particularly flattering resume for mankind does it? As for offering an alternative, I won’t be doing that here. That is not a subject that can be covered adequately in a forum such as this since it involves the introduction of an entirely new subject.
I find it hard to believe that many are generally okay with either candidate. I would believe that many are ignorant of both candidates or may not see any difference of any worth between the candidates. But that I think is the product of consumer-driven news media, rather than democracy itself.
Either way, it doesn’t bear upon the basic principles that I outlined.
I’d be interested in seeing some views on alternatives. No government is perfect, and certainly not the American version of democracy. I’d argue that we have a self correcting system though, with positive and negative feed back, and would be interested in hearing you tell us how a totalitarian dictatorship is a better alternative.
Is our Democracy a true Republic Democracy? Nope. Its a Representitive Democracy. We elect people to make the decisions and run the government from day to day. You are correct in saying that our choices are limited on WHO we elect (and at an estimated price tag of $300 MILLION dollars for a presidental candidate, I can see why…sheesh) but we DO have a choice. You can choose rich guys from either the Right, Left or Middle (most Right or Left unfortunately). So, in a sense, the wealthy elite do hand pick who we vote for…but you have a choice of which wealthy elite (Right or Left) you can vote for. Do I wish there were another way? Yep. I just don’t see how you could do it. Getting elected is all about marketing and exposure…and those both cost money.
Does Democracy keep the government honest? Yes. Our government IS self correcting (in broad terms). Even if only half of the people vote, they DO vote…and politicians have to keep that in mind. If they go too far outside of their bounds, or if they screw up massively, they will be gone. If a dictator screws up, oh well…c’est la vie. Take the current bruhahah about Bush and his merry men. I’d say his chances for re-election are hanging by a very small thread atm. If he doesn’t get the economy rolling soon (I personally don’t think the government has much to do with this, but perception IS reality), if he doesn’t find his WMD, or if any number of other things don’t come together, then we’ll have Mighty Joe or good ole Dick G in the white house soon.
“Does Democracy keep government honest?”
No. (One might ask "what does?) It does, at least as best as possible, keep government accountable. That’s different, but very useful. In pretty much any other system, the people in power can do what they like, and armed revolution or emigration is about the only way to do anything about it. I think as a system, it’s wonderful. Are we doing it very well here? In a lot of ways, absolutely not. Things are arranged so that only the very rich are able to hold major office, which makes for severe trouble in getting a range of options. And big money influences the results by a great deal because campaigns are so dictated by advertising. Well, I don’t need to go on with this, we know the problems.
Here’s the thing: even Lander’s complaints indicate that the problem is reforming the system we have, not finding a better one. What’s wrong with America isn’t democracy; I’d argue it’s the ways in which Democracy is misapplied or not applied. One man, one vote is about as reasonable a thing as you can ask for. One man, no vote sucks, and one man, two votes… well, I spend a lot of time in Chicago, so I’ll pass.
I look forward to your eventual thread on your “ideal” system. Should be interesting since you strongly imply it doesn’t exist anywhere on earth at present.
Also, it’s important to realize that a measure of a democracies “goodness” is not necesarily how much it’s actions agree with your own ideas. You (or anyone) may be out of the mainstream. I know I am. I rarely see my preferences enacted in this country but I attribute it to the fact that the majority think differently from me. However, as extisme pointed out, I also rarely see something enacted that I feel I simply can’t live with. So, something is working OK.
I’ll ignore for the time being the fact that the OP claims that what we have isn’t democracy, and it sucks, and based on that, democracy doesn’t work. Mostly because if I focused on it too long, my brain would hurt. Instead I’ll move to this:
First of all, I agree with John Mace. Most people I know don’t vote because they really don’t care either way. It’s not that they desperately wish to have their voices heard, if only there was a shining example of virtue upon which they could lavish sweet electoral blessings. I suppose there may be a lot of college students who feel this way, but I can tell you that the average college student knows precisely dick about politics, and doesn’t have the necessary knowledge to make informed opinion as to whether or not voting is “futile”.
Second, I think the idea that voting is futile is demonstrably false. If that were true, then all politicians would pretty much look the same, policy-wise, and to claim this is ludicrous. Look at Congress - the politicians that comprise it represent the entire political spectrum, from right-hardliners to nigh-Marxists. The presidency tends to be more moderate, because he has to appeal to all Americans, but still, you have your Clintons, you have your Reagans, you have your Carters, you have your Bushs. I’m sure a lot of people on these boards would have some choice words for you if you claimed Carter and Bush were the same.
Jeff
There are no alternatives until someone presents an entirely new system. And that is a subject for another thread. This one is about democracy. See the OP.
There is a difference between imperfect and inherently corrupt.
Read what I wrote in response to John Mace. I don’t think a totalitarian dictatorship is a better alternative. Implying that I mean to say such is a pretty weak attempt at a counter-argument.
**
“Getting elected is all about marketing and exposure…” And therein lies the key. So whether an official is elected or not is not dependent upon his skill as an economist or diplomat or statesman; it is dependent upon marketing and exposure. You don’t end up with leaders or competent managers, you end up with polished PR personalities who can smile for the cameras and project a desirable image. Is it any wonder that a recent president was an ex-Hollywood actor (no specific offense intended towards Ronald Reagan).
I am at least glad that you wish there were another way.
If the two candidates in an election bow to pretty much the same group of corporate and financial elites, how do the people really have a choice? And if the same corporate interests have heavy influence in the media, and the media presents the image of the candidates, how can the people make a choice? Their choices can only be based on the information they have to hand; and that information largely comes through the corporate news media.
And, while I will concede that if a politician screws up massively, he will likely lose his job, if his screw ups are given the correct PR spin, then he won’t be touched. If a President initiated an aggressive militaristic invasion of another sovereign nation, inflicting thousands of casualties upon the invaded civilians and military defenses, would that be considered a massive screw up? Not if the media pushes the supposed justifications long and hard enough. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if Bush loses his job over it. That he gained office and perpetrated these acts as president is demonstration enough that democracy does not keep the government honest.
And considering that all of the Dems that have any chance of facing off against Bush in ‘04 supported the invasion of Iraq, how would their tenure provide anything significantly different for the America? Sure there is the issue of the economy, but is that really anything more than political posturing and mud slinging for political purposes?
“Goodness” can be evaluated objectively in terms of the outcomes that any system breeds. Democracy has led obvious benefits to America and mankind and that goodness empirical and undeniable. But that does not mean it is perfect or even good in the long run.
Along with the goodness, there is also empirical flaws that are critical. And that is my point. That nothing is enacted that you can’t live with doesn’t mean that it won’t have ramifications that you can’t live with. Increasing ill will towards the US and a choking, insolvent American economy could very well lead to circumstances that you aren’t willing to live with.
My own personal ideals are irrelevant. Real world results and manifestations are relevant.
I’m having a bit of a deja vu here, in that I think some of us have been thru this in this thread
Your real issue seems to be not with politicians, but with an electorate that is not as “smart” as you are. I hope you won’t take this personally, because I really don’t intend it to be. You yourself claim to be able to see thru all the “PR crap”. Yet you are unwilling to bestow that ability on your fellow citizens. Why?
I think that democracy, with its attendant insitutions like a free press, keep the government more honest than in any system seen so far at this population scale. Perfectly honest? God, no. Very honest? Not really. Relatively honest? Generally, yes. While I can’t quote a ream of statistics to demonstrate this, I’d say that in democracies, corruption is limited and contained somewhat more than in totalitarian systems, and the situation is only getting better as communications and the media speed up.
Lander, it seems like what you’re looking for here is permission from us to cynically dismiss democracy by having us all agree that it sucks. If that’s not it, what is it you’re looking for?
Not to hijack this too far, but this is my only real objection to American style democracy. It is a democracy with only two parties. Yes, there are third parties, and yes, they occasionally get a significant chunk of presidential votes, but what does that get them in the end? At best the Republicans and Democrats pay more attention to whatever message they brought to the table, but third parties have rarely even had any representation in congress.
Having said that, I can’t image any form of government that could exist outside of a utopian dream that is “honest.” As for the greater part of the electorate that doesn’t bother to vote, I don’t think it’s because they recognize the futility of voting. Based on my own experience, it’s because they really don’t care about politics. Then again, maybe it’s just me. I always vote third parties and I recognize the futility of doing it.
Lander, how is democracy inherently corrupt? It’s corruptible, but so are all systems. Well, all systems that try/pretend not to be corrupt in the first place.
I have to disagree with that assessment. I think Dean has a chance. I agree completely about the restriction of options and that it’s a serious negative. There are flaws in the way the system is run right now that lead to this, but I don’t know that they’re inherent in it.
It’s the people who are corruptible. The sysetm needs to be designed to make that hard for people to act on that corruption. It’s the checks and balances more than the democracy in the US system that is set up for that. Democracy allows us to “kick the bums out” if they are found out to be currupt. Checks and Balances are set up to minimize the amount of damage that can be done before we can exercise our “boot perogative”.
Don’t restrict your analysis to only the U.S. of A. I happen to think our Constitution is pretty darn well thought out, but there are a number of other representative governments – the British, for one – that have been quite successful for a longer time. As John said, as long as you have people, there will be a certain amount of corruption. A well-thought-out representative system gives the best chance at removing corrupt individuals from power.
Heck, there is occasional corruption in organizations that are theoretically in existence for the main purpose of encouraging such virtues as honesty; we call them religions. It would be a challenge to think of one of any size that has never had any wrongdoings within its leadership.
Incidentally, many of the American founding fathers (and brothers) believed political parties to be anathema.
Obviously people are corruptible. But I think they’re also exploiting flaws in the system. We’re not really disagreeing here, mind you. I think that just means that our system needs continual tweaking. One of democracy’s strengths is its openness to change and evolution.
Read some things by R J Rummel, he writes about the benefits of a government that is liberal (meaning it tends to respect the universal declaration of human rights and has a free market economy) & democratic
Freedom is a basic human right recognized by the United Nations and international treaties, and is the heart of social justice.
Freedom is an engine of economic and human development, and scientific and technological advancement.
Freedom ameliorates the problem of mass poverty.
Free people do not suffer from and never have had famines, and by theory, should not. Freedom is therefore a solution to hunger and famine.
Free people have the least internal violence, turmoil, and political instability.
Free people have virtually no government genocide and mass murder, and for good theoretical reasons. Freedom is therefore a solution to genocide and mass murder; the only practical means of making sure that “Never again!”
Free people do not make war on each other, and the greater the freedom within two nations, the less violence between them.
Freedom is a method of nonviolence–the most peaceful nations are those whose people are free.
If your personal experience is that generally people are ignorant and therefore simply don’t care, then I can’t argue with that. My experience is that a lot of people feel like, “What difference does it make.” I will admit that such an attitude is possibly a result of instances of election administration being screwed up or vote fraud, but I also think that there is a perception that elections are a choice between tweedledum and tweedledee. And I don’t happen to think it is inaccurate or a result of ignorance.
As far as I know, each and every American government since the beginning of the twentieth century have increased the size of the federal government. Where are all those hard-line conservatives?
While there is the political posturing and proclamation about this policy and that, it seems to me to be little more than a smokescreen for the vested interests that they are serving. For example, any politician would be in support of a military conflict if their campaigns have been powered by arms manufacturers.
At any rate, politicians are renown for their shallow adherence to the proclamations and promises that they make. They all say what they must to get elected and, for the most part, simply seem to serve the interests that put them in power once they are in office. So to that degree, yes Carter and Bush are of the same ilk.
Well, you sure are going out on a limb trying to evaluate what my “real issue” is. Am I in therapy now?
If you recall, I mentioned that I think over half don’t vote predominantly because they do see the activity as futile. What gave you the idea that I thought that my fellow citizens couldn’t see though the PR crap?
I seem to vaguely recall a previous thread where you stopped arguing the actual point with me and instead accused me of claiming to be smarter than the general populace. Is this a regular tactic of yours John Mace? I hope you didn’t take this personally, because I really didn’t intend it to be.
Do I wish there were another way? Yep. I just don’t see how you could do it. Getting elected is all about marketing and exposure…and those both cost money.