The Death Of Democracy?

[sealchan]

If it's not too far out there, I consider Democracy dieing like when it happened in the fictional movie Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. Palpatine deceived everyone, and was met with thunderous applause from a mostly uneducated audience.

When politicians respond simply and quickly to complex situations because it looks good to the extreme elements and gets you noticed, then we have fertile ground for manipulation toward unseen ends.

Plus great use of Star Wars to make a timely point about today's politics!

 

[Laika]

Aside from the POTUS doing so (to which I have become numb and have taken to watching the TV series The West Wing for my psychological health)

I've had The West Wing on my DVD player playing in the background for most of the past couple of days, so I binge watched my way through season 6. It is definitely a break from the doom and gloom of the news and a heck of a lot less disorientating.

 

[Augustus]

As long as people remain free to vote for their elected officials.

You need far more than a vote to make a genuine democracy.

You need a functioning public sphere, legal institutions that are not simply an extension of the rulers, voting that isn't dominated by cash for votes and neo-feudalistic patronage networks, means to hold politicians accountable for their actions, etc.

Many countries that became democracies in the mid-late 20th C are fully fledged illiberal democracies where there is a vote, but little accountability or legal checks and balances.

 

[Laika]

This is a very critical point which quite a few missed by focusing on the US only. There are times when waves sweep over the world sometimes positive waves and sometimes waves of challenge and even destruction.

This is one such time. To me it's useful to have that perspective and context when learning about what is going on in various places.

What is going on in America obviously has most of my attention (to the point I am admittedly almost missing the UK election because I know how I'm going to vote anyway), but there is a wave of anti-democratic movements around the world at work right now. I can name Brazil, Hungary and Poland as having governments produced by the surge in support for the far-right. Marie Le Pen and the Front Nationale have been doing well in France and Dresden in Germany declared a "Nazi Emergency" as the far right is getting stronger there. So America's dysfunctional politics doesn't exist in isolation but is part of a much larger global and historical picture of economic and political crisis.

 

[joe1776]

An efficient government decision-making system ought to satisfy these four criteria:

1. It will maximize the intelligence of the decision-makers;
2. It will maximize the training and experience of the decision-makers;
3. It will maximize the trust of the citizenry;
4. It will minimize the chances of a bias that sends the decision off course.

The system of choosing decision-makers, including a leader, by holding democratic elections satisfies none of the criteria.

Currently, we don't have a better model. However, online communication such as we're doing here right now makes new models possible.

 

[sealchan]

I've had The West Wing on my DVD player playing in the background for most of the past couple of days, so I binge watched my way through season 6. It is definitely a break from the doom and gloom of the news and a heck of a lot less disorientating.

Well, the great thing about the series is that it does address many sorts of political power issues and attitudes, even and especially in the main characters...only their issues are so much less extreme and there is an overall ideal resolve to many of them. Very healing...

 

[Wandering Monk]

Palpatine deceived everyone, and was met with thunderous applause from a mostly uneducated audience.

...of POLITICIANS!!

 

[sealchan]

An efficient government decision-making system ought to satisfy these four criteria:

1. It will maximize the intelligence of the decision-makers;
2. It will maximize the training and experience of the decision-makers;
3. It will maximize the trust of the citizenry;
4. It will minimize the chances of a bias that sends the decision off course.

The system of choosing decision-makers, including a leader, by holding democratic elections satisfies none of the criteria.

Currently, we don't have a better model. However, online communication such as we're doing here right now makes new models possible.

Democratic elections helps to ensure that the above is possible otherwise there is the great risk of falling into a need for a violent revolution in order to re-establish the possibility of the above.

The reason why your list even makes any sense in the first place is that it is predicated on the notion that there is truth and the average citizen is capable of perceiving it and taking responsibility for seeing it implemented.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

...of POLITICIANS!!

Yes. Politicians uneducated about what was really going on. Exactly.

 

[sealchan]

...of POLITICIANS!!

Of people supposedly subject to being voted in or out...

A lot of people want to blame the politician but often that is blaming the messenger.

 

[Augustus]

The US is officially not a democracy but a republic.

While that made sense in the specific context of the choice between (Greek) direct democracy v (Roman) republic in the 18th C, it makes absolutely no sense abstracted from this context and based on how the word democracy is used today.

Even Americans who repeat this phrase don't use the term democracy to only mean a direct democracy. Otherwise they would have to say that there are no democracies in the world (at country level at least).

 

[Father Heathen]

Democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, but when you have two sheep and a wolf voting for dinner and yet they still select mutton, then there's a serious problem.
Democracy is only as effective as the electorate is informed, but when far too many people are easily deceived and manipulated into voting against their own interests, it's a **** show.

 

[sealchan]

What is going on in America obviously has most of my attention (to the point I am admittedly almost missing the UK election because I know how I'm going to vote anyway), but there is a wave of anti-democratic movements around the world at work right now. I can name Brazil, Hungary and Poland as having governments produced by the surge in support for the far-right. Marie Le Pen and the Front Nationale have been doing well in France and Dresden in Germany declared a "Nazi Emergency" as the far right is getting stronger there. So America's dysfunctional politics doesn't exist in isolation but is part of a much larger global and historical picture of economic and political crisis.

Perhaps also a sign of quick social change which is probably a result of internet-social media.

When I get on an online forum and talk I know I am talking, more or less, to the planet...or the English speaking planet anyway...what if quick translation gets implemented?

I think that if we want to spread democracy (aka republic-ness) to the whole planet then countries should give good rewards to dictators who allow a free and open internet.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I got to wondering something.... what if all this talk and worry about values not being upheld, and most of America is already recognizing it and plan to sweep the current regime out of office through voting these next elections?

Time will tell.

 

[joe1776]

Democratic elections helps to ensure that the above is possible otherwise there is the great risk of falling into a need for a violent revolution in order to re-establish the possibility of the above.

Democratic elections are better than anarchy, I'll concede that. But you're set a very low bar.

The reason why your list even makes any sense in the first place is that it is predicated on the notion that there is truth and the average citizen is capable of perceiving it and taking responsibility for seeing it implemented.

I think the reason my list makes sense is that it will apply just as well to any decision-making endeavor. For example, it applies to finding the right people to manage a business.

 

[Laika]

Perhaps also a sign of quick social change which is probably a result of internet-social media.

When I get on an online forum and talk I know I am talking, more or less, to the planet...or the English speaking planet anyway...what if quick translation gets implemented?

I think that if we want to spread democracy (aka republic-ness) to the whole planet then countries should give good rewards to dictators who allow a free and open internet.

Earlier on its history, there was a great deal of talk about the internet as a democratic medium that would change the politics of dictatorships. I think back in 2009, people were talking about the use of social media in popular uprisings in Iran and Urumqui (Western China). It was all based on the assumption that the internet would be a competitive marketplace of ideas where everyone had a voice and could be heard as the power to create content would be radically decentralised.

Now, this assumption is unravelling as we are starting to see the development of power structures within the internet. Social media companies have led to a significant centralisation of power and control over information so that can control what results you get from searches (Google), how you communicate and what news you get (Facebook), what kind of content you can see and what political view points you are exposed to (Youtube), etc. These are simply what it is currently being used to do, but I believe Facebook did try an experiment on users newsfeed to see how it would affect their mood by reinforcing behaviour, can deduce facts people haven't disclosed based on information people have submitted (e.g. political and religious views, sexual orientation, etc) and also create "shadow" profiles for people who haven't signed up because of information on them already in the system. This doesn't include the use of mass surveillance (such as by the NSA) or "big data" to manipulate people (The Cambridge analytica scandal). So the Democratic credentials of the internet have been severely eroded in recent years.

There is no denying that the internet is having a dramatic effect on politics and the capacity to disseminate information quickly to a large audience is making it easier to keep up with current events and spread falsehoods and conspiracy theories. But I think it's much more debatable whether the Internet will ultimately be good for democracy or will simply produce new means for corporate-government control of the people.

 

[Heyo]

I think a democracy is dead when the majority of the voters isn't interested in democracy any more. That may be when they elect politicians who are anti democratic but it may also be when they are too lazy to inform themselves about politics or too coward to fight for democracy.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Earlier on its history, there was a great deal of talk about the internet as a democratic medium that would change the politics of dictatorships. I think back in 2009, they were talking about the use of social media in popular uprisings in Iran and Urumqui (Western China). It was all based on the assumption that the internet would be a competitive marketplace of ideas where everyone had a voice and could be heard as the power to create content would be radically decentralised.

Now, this assumption is unravelling as we are starting to see the development of power structures within the internet. Social media companies have led to a significant centralisation of power and control over information so that can control what results you get from searches (Google), how you communicate and what news you get (Facebook), what kind of content you can see and what political view points you are exposed to (Youtube), etc. These are simply what it is currently being used to do, but I believe Facebook did try an experiment on users newsfeed to see how it would affect their mood by reinforcing behaviour, can deduce facts people haven't disclosed based on information people have submitted (e.g. political and religious views, sexual orientation, etc) and also create "shadow" profiles for people who haven't signed up because of information on them already in the system. This doesn't include the use of mass surveillance (such as by the NSA) or "big data" to manipulate people (The Cambridge analytica scandal). So the Democratic credentials of the internet have been severely eroded in recent years.

There is no denying that the internet is having a dramatic effect on politics and the capacity to disseminate information quickly to a large audience is making it easier to keep up with current events and spread falsehoods and conspiracy theories. But I think it's much more debatable whether the Internet will ultimately be good for democracy or will simply produce new means for corporate-government control of the people.

My concern is that while I think people in the United States may eventually come to the right conclusions, that I still think Putin may not be done with this stuff that he's trying to do yet, throwing us curveballs.

 

[Laika]

My concern is that while I think people in the United States may eventually come to the right conclusions, that I still think Putin may not be done with this stuff that he's trying to do yet, throwing us curveballs.

Yeah, we are in uncharted territory and a new era. my impression is that the U.S. intelligence community is already concerned that Russia is going to interfere in the 2020 Elections, so we'll have to wait and see what happens. The world's governments are basically just learning to "play with their new toys" at this point.

 

[joe1776]

My concern is that while I think people in the United States may eventually come to the right conclusions, that I still think Putin may not be done with this stuff that he's trying to do yet, throwing us curveballs.

During the Cold War, the military created the myth of the ten-foot Russian to get increases in defense spending. I never fell for that. I've always been confident that Russia's leaders were as dumb as ours.