True democracy

[Athena]

Democracy is a modern and civil model of government in the developed world,

but, why should it be imposed on underdeveloped countries?


True democracy requires many societal structures, including a well educated population, unbiased or free media, open communication channels, equal access to voting, and viable candidates.

In most underdeveloped countries, leaders who are appointed by a larger governing body seems to be a more stable option than imposing a democracy on a country that does not have the underlying structures yet to support it.


So, shouldn't the focus be on developing the structures of a society, the bottom parts of the hierarchy, that can support free and educated choices, rather than imposing a model of government from the top part first?

[Capstan]

Makes sense to me.

[Xanafax]

I prefer to think that Democracy is not the final leg in he race. A meritocracy is far more suitable I think. But we would have to be more highly conscious as a society to do it.

[Trezker]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

I prefer to think that Democracy is not the final leg in he race. A meritocracy is far more suitable I think. But we would have to be more highly conscious as a society to do it.

Yeah, I think that would require the majority of people to be highly conscious in order to work at all.

I think communism is much better than democracy, but it won't work unless almost all of humanity becomes very highly conscious. I'm hoping this is what happens 2012.

[Murphy]

Don't you think the introduction of democracy is that fastest way to foster all the other things like a free press?

Democracy is the greatest thing in the history of existence. I proud to live in one and I would have know hesitation in "imposing" democracy on anyone whether they want it or not.

[magi13]

How do you guys define democracy so that we'll have a common understanding, or at least cite some example nations. I like talking about 'Democracy' but let's have a common understanding.

Peace ^^

[Brutha]

Don't you think the introduction of democracy is that fastest way to foster all the other things like a free press?

Not really.

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria is a good summary of the argument.
Now ten years later Pakistan is a democracy again. Do you think that Pakistan works now better than before?

Additionally what does Democracy mean?
The Chinese people like the Chinese government more than the US citizens like the US government.
If democracy is about having a government that liked by the people the chinese wouldn't be so bad after all.

Then we have states like Singapore in which the same party wins every election, which doesn't care that much about human rights but has low corruption and a strong rule of law.

Don't you think the introduction of democracy is that fastest way to foster all the other things like a free press?

Introduction of democracy can sometimes create political instability. Political instability leads to people getting killed which works against a free press.

[magi13]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Not really.

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy by Fareed Zakaria is a good summary of the argument.
Now ten years later Pakistan is a democracy again. Do you think that Pakistan works now better than before?

Additionally what does Democracy mean?
The Chinese people like the Chinese government more than the US citizens like the US government.
If democracy is about having a government that liked by the people the chinese wouldn't be so bad after all.

Then we have states like Singapore in which the same party wins every election, which doesn't care that much about human rights but has low corruption and a strong rule of law.
Introduction of democracy can sometimes create political instability. Political instability leads to people getting killed which works against a free press.

Democracy has it's advantages and disadvantages, that is why I asked you guys to input your own definition of the term so we can start on that (refers to the thread starter)

I can define democracy as equity. That is equal treatment for people of equal capacity or capability or quality and this is not equality among people but equality among equals.

Advantages, people of like circumstances are treated the same.

Disadvantages, it's not easy to apply. (I'm a Filipino) In our Philippines, my country is a Republican and Democratic State, having said that we live in a Democratic Society. The Advantages is that the Economic Curve has improved despite what people say in the media "I made a thesis out of these and those were my findings."

We have problems like many factions are often instigating the unlearned to rise up against the government. In short, "The fault is in the people for closing their minds.'

This is how I view Democracy, both with advantages and disadvantages. I still do believe in Democracy and that's not my country's problem it's my people. hehe.

My conclusion is that, democracy is a good system. You just need to educate your citizens, and have a good educational system to bring em up to become good members of society.

This is my example.

[Brutha]

I can define democracy as equity. That is equal treatment for people of equal capacity or capability or quality and this is not equality among people but equality among equals.

That not the thing that traditionally is meant by the word democracy in the west.
The thing you describe would be liberalism.

You could also have a philosopher king that resides over a country and sees that laws get enforced that create equality in that society. A political system like that however wouldn't be called democracy.

[magi13]

Originally Posted by Brutha

That not the thing that traditionally is meant by the word democracy in the west.
The thing you describe would be liberalism.

You could also have a philosopher king that resides over a country and sees that laws get enforced that create equality in that society. A political system like that however wouldn't be called democracy.

True, but that's how it's practiced here they call it a republican democracy. Now, I'd like to here how from the thread starter on what he means by this post. ^^

The question of why impose it to the lower class countries? If I understood this question, I think it'd be a nice way for the underdeveloped to base their system at and experiment and grow.

At least that's what happened in my country.

[Trezker]

Democracy is when the people does not fear the government. Because when the government does bad things, it gets replaced by the peoples choice.

The most important value in a democracy is government transparency. The people must be able to find out exactly what their elected politicians are doing so they can know who needs to be replaced.

The second most important value is privacy of the people. In order to avoid affecting people with scare tactics you must be able to keep your vote and opinions secret.

[Dan.Linehan]

Democracy is actually an unstable form of government.

About Government Video


The US form of government is not democracy. The US is a constitutional republic.

[Athena]

By democracy, in the initial post, is meant the form of elected government, whereby the population appoints a leader by majority vote.

There are many examples right now of the masses appointing a leader, but that the 'mass consciousness' is not high enough to make a proper selection

Populations, especially in the developed world, have natural clear hierarchies, in a pyramid form. The elites are at the top of the pyramid, in education, resources, and leadership, and in most meritocracies, people are groomed for leadership roles, selected by and staying at the top of the pyramid.

In a democracy, the power shifts to the bottom of the pyramid, the majority mass or base, where in many countries, there are not adequate resources, education, information, or even character and morality judgment, and in many cases, these people are more easily persuaded to follow leaders who appeal to base values, although not necessarily fit to lead, and often detrimental to the country as a whole.


In the past US elections, the 'close to the top' liberals, the middle and upper middle class, generally has a higher education, and sense of consciousness, morality, character judgment and foresight to appoint a fit leader, but their voices and votes are overrun by the majority lower class of the population.

Because of the popular vote, winning the mass or base of the pyramid has gotten the leader elected. In this way, the values and morals of the lower classes are imposed on the whole society, and neither the middle or upper ruling classes can be formed or groomed in order to lead and move the country forward in evolution.


This is not a case of elitism, as in the developed world, resources are not distributed well enough that the entire population, including the lower class, is educated and morally clear.

In the developed countries where democracy rules, capitalism does as well, which also keeps the hierarchical structure of the population in place.


There are many countries in which the elected leader was not ideal for the whole country, and where political unrest, protests, coups, and often new leaders appointed by some other means was the result

Currently:

the last two elections in the US, perhaps more before that, (in the most recent election, the US did choose the higher consciousness leader, but still by a small margin, and only after a lot of damage to the country from the lower consciousness leader)

Canada
Thailand
Japan
Taiwan
South Korea
Mongolia
Malaysia
Pakistan
the Philippines

etc.



Clearly, democracy is not the best form of government, even in the developed world, and so it should be questioned whether it should be imposed on the undeveloped world as well.