Is democracy appropriate for every culture/society?

Yes, in it’s purest form, without politics and economics getting in the way.

@YARNLADY But speaking in such an idealised sense, isn’t socialism theoretically superior?

A representitive republic is theoretically better, and works so well on all levels. Socialism is a nice dream, but it takes 100% cooperation to succeed. One guy saying “Why am I doing 5 times the work them him but we’re both getting the same benefits?” is all it takes for it not to work. It works well in small groups where all agree, but forcing that onto someone actually makes it no longer socialism. I’d rather live in a world where you have incentives to strive to become better than others and rewarded for the work being done.

@12Oaks Playing the devil’s advocate for a minute: If democracy is so great and unilaterally superior, then why do countries like Afghanistan and East Timor need such a long period of time to settle in to a democratic system? Shouldn’t they recognise its benefits and immediately adopt it when the basic structure is in place?

@FireMadeFlesh There’s a learning curb to anything. Think of it as like marriage. You don’t marry the first girl,guy you meet. You date, date others if necessary. Even once you find who it is you’re going to marry, it takes some time to realize that. Even after you marry, there still is some settling in time and getting used to and appreciating this new system of your life. After 22 or 25 or 30 or whatever amount of years, suddenly there’s change. Good change, change you wanted, change you want to keep, but change that first has got to be learned for it to be successful. Not unlike spending your first night in a new place after you moved out of your parents house. All this new freedom that you looked forward to for some time, but you’re not sure what to do with it. In time you learn, learn to love it, learn to want nothing else. It’s just the transistion period where the real test is being taken.

@12Oaks Fair enough. To an extent, I don’t trust average people to be able to judge what is best for the country. People form political opinions even if they are awfully ignorant, and they may not even recognise that their vote contributed to whatever the party in power decides. I think voter ignorance in part has led to the stale-mate in my country, since voting is compulsory.

That is beside the point though, since democracy doesn’t require a partisan format. If we keep the definition simple, i.e. all citizens being eligible to vote for nominated candidates, then I tend to agree. It is the complexities added to this that make democracy problematic.

Nobody has figured out how to organize a division of labor society without government.
At that point there are only two choices.
Make people slaves to the whim of the government, or make the government responsive to the governed.
Since human beings have free will, it seems natural to them to exercise it.
Thus democracy, which requires and allows exercise of free will, is something that appeals to the nature of man. Plus, it is the best way anyone has come up with to stop the inevitable progress into tyranny that all governments seem to experience eventually.

@josie That makes a lot of sense, thanks. All governments are subject to the people to some extent though, as the Egyptians recently proved to us. Do you think politicians in a democracy spend too much time looking over their shoulder at the approval ratings, rather than making decisions? Again playing the devil’s advocate, wouldn’t it be better for a government to be removed only when the population decided it was necessary, rather than having to ask them their opinion every few years?

Basically, democracy needs intelligent and engaged citizens in order to truly work.

@lifeflame So what system would you recommend in societies where the population is either/both unintelligent or apathetic?

@FireMadeFlesh The best way to keep the government “honest” is to make sure that politicians are always a little nervous about where they stand with their constituents.
It is good that they are looking over their shoulders. It increases their awareness, no different than you would be if you thought somebody was following you on a dark street :)
They should stand for public electoral judgment as frequently as is practical in my opinion. Too many elections, however, would be chaotic. Not enough would breed tyranny. There is no science that would say how frequently or infrequently elections should be held.

@FireMadeFlesh

I’d recommend, as Plato would, a philosopher-king would be someone like the king of Bhutan, who puts the infrastructure for education + informed citizenry, and then steps down.

Actually, any system that develops political maturity of its citizens – monarchy, republic, socialist, is good, as long as they stay on track for this goal, allowing for discussion and dissent among its people.

The truth is—as all of you who run organisations know— true democracy (one person, one vote) is really difficult in terms of leadership. Actually, any organisation involving so many people is tricky. I actually might question even the idea of nation-state… but that would be another long discussion….

No, the more liberty we give the people of whatEVER country, the better off they are. However, I do not approve of violating our own Constitution to “spread democracy:”

WASHINGTON – Giving little thought to the lessons of history, President Obama has begun attacking Libya with the full support of virtually every member of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

“President Obama’s decision to order military attacks on Libya is only surprising to those who actually think he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. He has now ordered bombing strikes in six different countries, adding Libya to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

“While the justifications vary in each case, the disturbing common thread is that these are all predominantly Muslim countries. And the goodwill expressed by Arab people about Obama in opinion polls early in his administration has completely vanished: in the most recent Zogby survey, 85% expressed an unfavorable opinion toward the United States, eclipsing the 83% negative opinion in the final year of the Bush administration.

“Libyan President Muammar Gadaffi is no friend of liberty, but the military involvement of the United States in the rebellion against him threatens to undermine the credibility of the resistance to his rule and turn him into a hero. As news of both actual and rumored killings of innocent civilians by American bombs spreads throughout the Arab world, the hatred which spawned the 9/11 murderers will continue to grow. Finally, what if Gadaffi still manages to defeat the rebels? Faced with the choice of losing face or upping the ante with an escalation of military involvement, this could turn into yet another disastrous campaign. And as Steve Chapman put it in an article in Reason magazine, ‘Most of the people endorsing an attack know less about Libya than they do about playing the oboe.’ When will we ever learn?

“Libertarians advocate the foreign policy eloquently described by Thomas Jefferson at his inauguration: ‘Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.’ Just as the Founding Fathers expressed admiration for the ‘Swiss Model’ of armed neutrality that has managed to keep Switzerland out of the vicious wars of Europe for hundreds of years, we should embrace the idea that the purpose of an American military is the defense of American soil, period. As Senator Barack Obama said in criticizing the Bush administration, ‘The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’

“The Constitution of the United States requires an explicit Declaration of War in order for this country to engage in hostilities with foreign nations. Obama, after dithering for two weeks, has joined the list of presidents who chose to launch wars on their personal say-so in direct contravention of the Constitution.

“I don’t know how many times we have to endure administrations, both Republican and Democratic, who shoot first and ask questions later. Probably for as long as we continue to elect Republicans and Democrats to office.”

The Libertarian Party platform includes the following:

3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

I feel this government is in such a whole that there is no true control, why are we in a middle of a war that has nothing to do with this country, cause of gas? Hello Alaska… Democracy is a the right to be able to speak your mind and be able to be not under the control of the government, but in reality we are in the same predicament, just that they let things like education fade, allow children to have children.. I feel that other countries have the upper hand over us due to the fact that they have more input on what people are allowed to do… Even though I feel that Japan is such an ideal country but due to the tragic tsunami currently is not in the state its used to be, they are still in control, people arent completely losing there minds.. But compared to the way we reacted to katrina??? We look really bad huh.. something to thing about…

It doesn’t seem to be appropriate in the United States, and that’s for damn sure.

But I don’t know of anything better.

Democracy must develop out of desire of the populace; organically. Outsiders can’t and shouldn’t just impose an entire governmental and ideological system upon others. That’s very anti-democratic. Oh, the irony.

@FireMadeFlesh Democracy is a political ideology and socialism is an economic system. They are not mutually exclusive.

Democracy is probably pointless without widespread literacy and some equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, except for the upper middle class, broader American culture has largely shed the desire to be intellectual, which has resulted in a self-perpetuating cycle of idiotic politicians who grow ever more authoritarian as the years go on.

@YARNLADY: In theory, any socialism must by definition be democratic. In practice, it never really worked that way except on small scales. But there isn’t even a single kind of socialism. There are countless socialist models, encompassing everything from statism to direct democracy. Libertarianism (the real thing, not the Rand-inspired U.S. political party) might actually be fairly close to what early American political thinkers might have wanted.

Thanks everyone for your responses.

@CaptainHarley I think Obama has learned a lot from Afghanistan and Iraq. He is not committing ground troops, and he is eager to hand over command to a joint task force rather than place the US in the lead role in Libya. The current UN authorised military action in Libya is not designed to remove Gaddafi. Although Obama has stated that the US policy is that Gaddafi must go for stability to return, he has also stated that the US will not be involved in any direct action to remove him.

Citizens get the government they want and probably deserve. China had dictators they called Emperors, then they got communist dictators. Now they have literate people and a working economy and are on their way to a form of government that is neither communist nor capitalist. They are having a slow, quiet revolution.

The. U.S. killed the leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan the tried to impose democracy. The people are illiterate and the majority are narrow minded and they will revert to tribal law and likely dictatorial government even with our presence.

Ignorance is what keeps people subject to despotic rule. Look at most of Africa and the remaining countries in the middle-east who have not revolted; they all lack education.

Look at the U.S. and you can see the right attacking science and education. Why? because the ignorant are easily controlled. Educated people want to control their destiny, the ignorant are content with a little food, some entertainment, and to follow orders.

What I a saying is that we get the government we deserve and ignorant people cannot sustain a democracy.