Talk:Democracy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Les Marshall

Who is Les Marshall? If he is an expert, why no affliation? This paragraph seems to make a fairly simple point in a very convoluted way. But I think the quote should go, since 1) I can't find any books or other material by the guy, hence adding him to the artcile does not add any authority or helpful info, 2) if the article's own voice can make the rest of the points in the paragraph, then it does not need a quote to make the point about the seeming inevitability to a multi-party structure, 3) the quote doesn't seem to add as much analysis. Chrisvls 20:01, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I moved a newbies edit to the bottom of the page.  If you wrote the point note that the custom is to put any new 
threads at the bottom of the page.  This is where all wikipedians expect new points to be raised.Barnaby dawson 19:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes

Can someone please explain the recent changes? It would be much appreciated. -- Stevietheman 04:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am familiar with the changes in Tyranny of the majority, however, they seem to be pretty self-explanatory, the original naively claimed that such hadn't existed. I knew this wasn't true, having lived through the moral hand wringing of conscription during the Vietnam war, when young men who were not even considered old enough to drink or vote were being sent off to war. The ability of a majority to single out a minority like this is one of the major flaws in democracy. Some recognition of this flaw is demonstrated by the need for the Bill of Rights and the checks and balances and super-majority provisions of the US Constitution. However, more is obviously needed, perhaps provisions that a majority of voters must be at the highest tax rate for instance or that a majority of voters must be subject to any conscription law, so that majorities can't easily agree to oppress "the other guy", i.e., some minority. I hope this explains it, ask questions if it isn't clear to you. --Silverback 07:23, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer to see an explanation by the authors about why the beginning of the article was so dramatically altered. It's not my job to ask questions, but it behooves the author(s) to explain their work. -- Stevietheman 22:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am planning to rewrite the initial section today. In my opinion the layout and style have got worse (and probably the NPOV status also). I will try to remedy those problems. Barnaby dawson 10:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the new paragraphs in the introduction. I have moved some of this material to Athenian democracy because it was relevent there. I've deleted some material about the difference between the original meaning of the word democracy and its current meaning (a couple of lines). We reference athenian democracy in the introduction with the note that it was the original democracy and had a different meaning of the word. I think this is enough. There was also some POV I deleted. Barnaby dawson 10:42, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Democracy in the cyber age

I've moved the material on democracy in the cyber age to the page on Habib R. Sulemani because the section was just about his theorising on democracy. Barnaby dawson 10:15, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority

I've just rewritten this section. I considered it to be POV before aledging many things to be tyranny of the majority where there is a public interest case to be heard. I've pointed out that these are cases when a majority acted against the wishes of a minority but qualify it by stating that for many people that is not the same as a tyranny of the majority. The case of conscription in vietnam I do agree to be an example of tyranny of the majority but I would expect I'm unusual in that. Barnaby dawson 11:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, and as that term is used by people I know, relevant examples are typically the treatment of linguistic, ethnic and racial minorities in democracies. The examples in the article makes a phony and propagandist impression on me, and I would rather see them be removed.
--Ruhrjung 15:48, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

In the case of the Vietnam draft the arguments were quite explicit about the conscripts not even being considered old enough to vote. Ruhrjung is correct about the original usage usually being for linguistic, ethnic and racial minorities, but that is probably why the arguments were quite deliberately borrowed in other contexts. Protecting a disenfranchised and voiceless minorty has been a persuasive argument that has assisted the pro-life movement during its growth. Conservatives have long been concerned about the day when those on the public dole outnumber those paying for it, and have been critical of class warfare rhetoric. The currently quite active movement towards a flat rate tax is motivated not just by simplification, but argued strongly for as a matter of fairness. Of course, in doing this conservatives have already conceded much ground, since even a flat rate tax has the rich paying far more than what conservatives consider their fair share of the taxes. Their idea of fairness tends more towards a "use" tax, where those who use government services are the ones who should pay for them. The US founding fathers were very concerned about "taxation without representation", and although they did not phrase it as "tyranny of the majority", they were quite outnumbered by those in the homeland in England. In a sense, any movement for local government and/or self rule, when the extant government is "democracy" is a movement against a tyranny of the majority. In Alaska, and in many of the western United States, the local populate resents federal control of their lands and resources, and argue that their local opinions should have more say regarding the lands within their states.

You should have seen the original form of this article which was quite sanguine and smug in its worship of democracy.--Silverback 18:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Progressive taxation is not "tyranny of the majority." In fact the very wealthy currently pay and always have paid a disproportionately low amount of their income in taxes - according to Congressional Budget Office figures, the wealthiest 1% of the American population, who accounted for roughly 40% of the income and capital gains in the US during 2003, paid only 20% of their income and capital gains in taxes. Iceberg3k 16:29, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

It is the majority deciding to treat a minority differently. There is no question that the wealthy 1% pay far more than their fair share of taxes, and pay for far more government services than they receive. Many have to purchase security systems and other security measures because police protection is so inadequate for the threats they should be protected from. The majority always has its reasons for oppressing minorities, so your state is not a suprise. If the majority wants to avoid the tyrrany lable then it should make sure that at least a majority is at the top marginal rate, in fact, that would be an important protection that should be in the constitions. Otherwise, what you get is effectively taxation without representation.--Silverback 16:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no question that what you say is entirely untrue. The Congressional Budget Office - which controls the budget for the government and monitors the country's economy - agrees with my assessment and disagrees with yours. Unless you wish to impose regressive taxation - a blatant reversal of any rational social contract - the top marginal tax rate will never be paid by more than a tiny minority of the population because of the simple mechanics of income distribution. Iceberg3k 16:50, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Silverback that this section isn't a place for arguments either way. But it's fair to say that in many democracies, the majority who aren't wealthy generally apply progressively higher taxes to the minority who are wealthy. Now whether this leads to even or fair income tax payment distribution is arguments for another article or web site. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 17:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Educated citizens

Speaking only as a visitor, I'd remove "Educated citizens, knowledgeable of the issues of the day, and informed of their rights and civic responsibilities" as a institution of democracy. While education is a desirable goal, all the other characteristics you list are actually incorporated into the structure of democratic government. Education is a utopian hope, not a defining characteristic. Many democracies survive just fine with an ignorant electorate -- not that I'm naming any names. (Nov. 7, 2004)

Some degree of education of your citizens is characteristic of modern democracies. It is incorporated into the constitution of many countries. However I agree the rider 'knowledgeable of the issues of the day' is overstating the case.

However, I would certainly say it is something to strive for. Education of your citizens is not a utopian dream it is something that many european states provide up till the age of 18. The quality of that education varies but so do the quality of many of these institutions.

I changed the wording to remove 'Knowledgeable of the issues of the day'. Barnaby dawson 22:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New examples

All three of the new examples can be regarded as tyranny of the majority. They should not be lumped together with the other examples. Please justify your reasoning if you revert this. Barnaby dawson 22:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is only majority prejudice that justifies any of the items, I did not single out those three, if was whomever thought there was a need to qualify these examples of majority tyranny that should justify their classification. The majority thinks they have good reasons in each instance.--Silverback 22:33, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"illegalisation of gay sex in britain," etc. Gay sex wasn't just illegal, it was criminal (a somewhat different matter). Unauthorized parking may be illegal, but in the normal course of events isn't criminal. Since gay sex obviously was criminal, I'm going to change this to say "criminalization". If I've misrepresented anybody's intention in doing so, I look forward to hearing as much. --Christofurio 23:57, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

The Jim crow laws are now almost universally regarded as examples of tyranny of the majority. As are the laws banning gay sex (within the UK). I am still unhappy with the other examples. Maybe our problem is an example of a European - American divide. For instance everyone (all from London or Cambridge) with whom I have discussed the gay-marriage issue has viewed the decisions made with horror.

I would speculate that the pro-life and class warfare examples would be rejected in europe and accepted in the US. I would also speculate that the gay-marriage example would be rejected in the US but accepted in europe. Do you think this is true? Barnaby dawson 22:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The term "marriage" has religious significance within the United States, so it is mainly a battle over words. I believe just one of the states with referendums rejected "civil unions" for gays, and no state prevents gays from making life long commitments to each other. The real wonder is what the goverment is doing licensing marriage anyway, I assume this is something the US got from Europe, unfortunately now there are financial benefits such as income tax deductions tied to the license. These financial inducements are a backdoor way for the majority to impose its vision of morality. One way out would be to allow tax deductions for any "dependents" whether related by blood or "marriage" or whatever, the criteria should be the financial support provided.--Silverback 23:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can't have "tyranny of the majority" if the majority is disenfranchised - as it was in Britain and the USA during the 19th century. Keep that in mind before you add any more examples. At the time when Jim Crow laws were passed, for example, only a minority of the people living in the USA could actually vote (women and African-Americans were excluded). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can. A majority of those who have the franchise can tyrannize over a minority of those who do, and its perfectly sensible to invoke that as tyranny of the majority whatever may be the percentage of those enfranchised. The slaves of Athens of course weren't allowed to vote on their own enslavement. When we refer to the judicial murder of Socrates, though, as a tyrnny of the majority, that fact is irrelevant. Socrates was a free man, and was a dissenting minority within the community of the enfranchised. The majority silenced him. The above examples are in roughly that spirit. --Christofurio 14:45, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

So if, for example, the franchise is restricted to 3 people in a country of one million, and two of them "oppress" the third one, that is a case of "tyranny of the majority"? Ridiculous!

If its ridiculous, then you are trying to legislate against arithmetic. Yes, two is a majority of three. --Christofurio 20:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

My point was that there are a million other people in that country, and only two of them oppress the person we are talking about. This isn't a "tyranny of the majority" (at least not in a democratic sense) - it's a case of oligarchs oppressing other oligarchs. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By your logic, just about every possible system of government - except absolute autocracy - can be counted as a "democracy", since there are always more than two people who make government decisions (i.e. people who "have the franchise").

For the purpose of discussing what is an example of majority tyranny, the key point is whether getting the vote amounts to protection against tyranny. Socrates had the vote -- so did Oscar Wilde. They were tyrannized nonetheless. That suggests that it doesn't.

No, the key point is whether universal suffrage amounts to protection against tyranny. And neither Socrates nor Wilde lived in a system with universal suffrage. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statements you've been contesting in this article have never included the phrase "universal suffrage." Nobody has been trying to include the sentence, "History is full of examples of universal suffrage oppressing minorities." It isn't, because the experiemnt hasn't been run often enough to be "full of" any particular result. Yet Alan Turing fared no better than Oscar Wilde, and some of us have been trying to include this point: that history is full of enfranchised minorities whose possession of the franchise did not prevent their oppression in the face of the majority of those with the franchise. Why do you regard that truth as unsayable? Because its inconvenient for your POV? Precisely why it must be said. Christofurio 21:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my point that you can't have a tyranny of the majority if the country is actually ruled by a minority. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And I stand by my point that 2 > 1, hence a majority of three. Is that horribly POV? --Christofurio 20:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

It's POV if you put it in this article, as opposed to the article on oligarchy - where you can discuss to your heart's content about oligarchs oppressing other oligarchs. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So the fact that 2 is a majority of 3 is POV unless its in some ghetto to which you've assigned it? I don't think so. Truthful statements of arithmetic will fight harder against ghettoization than the inhabitants of Warsaw ever did. --Christofurio 21:56, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point when the franchise was only extended to a very small proportion of the population, but it can be argued that once it had been extended to all males for instance, it is still an issue those that argue for less constrained forms of democracy should address. Before women gained the franchise it was argued that if they were franchised there would be no more wars, instead their votes made little difference. Democracy should not be allowed to escape its atrocities, or its tendencies to elevate minorities above the rest (witness the monopoly privledges granted to attorneys and doctors) --Silverback 17:57, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that women - or anyone else for that matter - were ever called to vote on whether a country should go to war or not. So of course their votes made no difference, because they were never asked to vote on the issue! To see just how undemocratic our countries are, look no further than the war in Iraq. The overwhelming majority of the world's population was staunchly against it, but our dear "democratic" leaders said "f**k you" and went ahead with the war anyway. And as far as the "atrocities" of democracy are concerned... well, you already know the famous Winston Churchill quote, don't you? "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." I'm afraid there's no escaping the fact that democracy is the utilitarian ideal.

But getting back on the subject, look at it this way: In a system where the franchise is restricted to males (50% of the population), a decision can be made by just 25% + 1 of the population (i.e. half plus one of the males). I don't see how you can call that a "democracy"... and if it gets tyrannical, then it is certainly a tyranny of the minority. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the United States, women have been voting to select the leadership that was in place for all the wars after WWI, in addition, there have been several elections during wars. Your Churchill quote is also one of my favorites, but keep in mind, that in such quotes "democracy" was not being used with the precision we attempt to use it within an encyclopedia. Churchill undoubtedly had a "republic" in mind, incorporating protections against the tyranny of a majority, such as rights and supermajority provisions. Your example of the war in Iraq, is merely illustrative of the fact that earth is not ready for a one world democratic government and how poor the decisions can be that a democracy arrives at.--Silverback 19:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merely electing leaders and then giving them a free hand to do whatever they want for 4 years does not count as anything more than a very limited democracy as far as I'm concerned. Certainly, it would be physically impossible to give direct legislative power to the people (as in direct democracy), but citizens should have the power to repeal any law or decision taken by the government if the majority of them disagree with it. The war in Iraq (like many other wars before it) was started against the will of the majority, so it counts as an undemocratic decision. As for Churchill, I only use that quote of his as a tidy way to sum up my argument - regardless of whether Churchill's original intention was to make a different argument. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A minority oppressing a majority because the minority holds suffrage rights and the majority doesn't is not a tyranny of the majority. However when the minority being persecuted are as likely as the majority to possess the right to vote then it is still surely an example of tyranny of the majority. This is the case with the gay sex issue. Males may be the only people to have the right to vote (in 19th century britain) but the oppressed group is not obviously under-represented amongst those with that right. (more comments to be added here in half an hour or so) Barnaby dawson 16:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Barnaby. Very well said. --Christofurio 13:21, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I just changed the qualifier at the end of the section on tyranny of the majority. I don't think its fair the say that no action of a 19th century democracy could be viewed as a an example of tyranny of the majority. After all the phrase has repeatedly been used in reference to ancient athenian actions (And ancient anthens certainly didn't have universal suffarage). I've tried to put a more NPOV statement in. Hope this is better. Barnaby dawson 16:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that any action of a 19th century "democracy" may be viewed as a tyranny of the minority rather than one of the majority, since there was no universal suffrage. Of course, everything depends on how restrictive you are with your definition of "democracy" (in the extreme case, just about every possible system of government - except absolute autocracy - can be counted as a "democracy", since there are always more than two people who make government decisions). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And the point I've been trying to make is that this isn't about labelling societies or states in an all-or-nothing way. Its about deciding whether the right to vote by itself protects someone from oppression. The concern expressed by the phrase "tyranny of the majority" is that it doesn't -- that one can have the vote and still lose out in ways that will be as oppressive and victimizing as if one had never had it. For the purpose of evaluating this claim, a tyranny of the majority exists whenever a minority of those who do have the vote is in victimized. Alan Turing was jailed for his homosexuality in the mid-20th century. Oscar Wilde was jailed for his in the late 19th century. Are you saying that women got the franchise in between, and that consequently Wilde was tyrannized but Turing was not? Both were members of a persecuted minority of those who could vote, so it seems reasonable to categorize them appropriately. The article now says, "In practice, history offers numerous examples of ruling minorities who oppressed a disenfranchised majority," -- and its fair and NPOV to say so. By the same token, iyts fair and NPOV to point out that history also offers plenty of examples of the oppression of enfranchised minorities. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Christofurio 00:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality message

Please give a specific objection to the text as currently on the page. Your objection appears to be to the certain actions as being viewed as tyranny of the majority. However the article does not assert that these are examples of tyranny of the majority. Barnaby dawson 16:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is/is not democracy?

Self illusion today is based on the baptising of a representative system invented to keep people largely out of reach of political decisions as democratic. To make new-speak even more effective we consider as POV the historically correct view that the inventors of democracy considered representation as an anathema to democracy. These are not simply points of view since they differentiate between something that is democratic (self-representation) and something that is not (representation). It is of course also clear that democracy can never be a simple question of procedure but even if we restrict our discussion to procedural questions the differences are monumental and do not allow the use of the same term (democracy) for such different political systems. Let us review some of the differences: 1. No elections of representatives. 2. Justice is not a question of experts in law but a question for all. Hence we have inherited from the Hellenes the institution of juries in courts of law. But we also entrust justice to expert judges while in democratic times they were chosen at random. 3. Positions of authority remained at the permanent mercy of the people while we give our leaders effectively almost unlimited power as current and historical events may prove: decisions to go to war have been against popular will. 4. Exclusion of private interests from political decisions is the opposite of what takes place today: lobbying, power influencing groups, campaign financing etc The list can go on for long. The essence is that in an encyclopaedia clarity of meaning is essential and to call current representative political systems democratic is self-illusion and very dangerous when they are a product for enforced export to all cultures.

Last, I would like to point out that the existence of a constitution has little to do with democracy. The UK does not have one. Democracies do not need constitutions because they allow themselves to question anything and everything at any time. Procedures can never adequately protect a society from sinking into totalitarianism or extremism or distancing itself from democratic institutions. Only the character of their citizens can do this. An Athenial citizen was a very different human being from a modern person. His understanding of what is morality, justice, freedom etc was very different.

Any thoughts out there?

I am not familiar with the rules of wikipaedia, but I do hope that a basic rule is that one term should not have opposing meanings.

Perhaps you are not a native speaker of english, but in english, the usage of the word democracy is not so pure. Perhaps the impurity is on purpose to obsfuscate, but there are no language police, language is a natural phenomena with a life of its own. If you look closely you will also see that "freedom" is not freedom, "justice" is not justice, "equality" is not equality, "mercy" is not mercy, etc. Unfortunately, if we want to talk about the pure concepts, we need to explain ourselves with more words.--Silverback 17:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree that language has a life of its own; this is not particular to English. I do not agree that we should avoid more words if we need to say them. It is not possible to pre-determine what is excessive or brief. As far as pure concepts go I do not know what the 'pure' stands for in our case of 'democracy'. I would think of the term more applicable to sciences like maths and physics but not in human affairs where concepts are historical dynamic ‘beings’.

It would be as foolish to try to mimic ancient institutions as it would be do not try learning from them (and from history in general). In ‘1984’ the ‘newspeak’ is a good fictitious example of what you point out and of what I think we should try to avoid in an encyclopaedia. We should agree on certain concepts. Democracy requires self rule and certainly equality: isonomy (equality in law) and ‘isopolitia’ (equality in politics, a much broader concept). It did not require priority of equality in property or wealth as communists have argued and tried to put into practice with catastrophic results. In the West the link between wealth and political power is clear, definitely undemocratic and served well by representation procedures. Any law or rule is open to interpretation that is a question of culture, to put it generally. For example while one might think that killing or amputating a thief is justice done, others might think otherwise and there is absolutely no way to predetermine answers to such questions. Killing is generally unacceptable but all societies have had exceptions to this rule/law. Democracy’s answer to such questions is that since everything political is essentially a question of opinion, since there is no way of establishing a method to distinguish wise opinion from unwise, the only way is the democratic way where all opinions are of equal weight and the distinction is made by the demos’ decision. Ancient demos stated as reasons for their decisions simply that it was the opinion of the demos, simple and clear, while modern culture trusts experts and presents many of the decisions by governments as scientific (and hence indisputable since science is not, neither can or should it be, democratic). Plato first set the foundations for such attacks against democracy, because he hated democracy, by arguing that demos was effectively an ‘ochlos’ and incapable of making wise decisions. Thus he blinded himself to the amazing achievements of democracy inside the cradle of which he was allowed to say what he did by a society that loved freedom and individualism; such was the sense of gratitude of a man that would have probably been killed for expressing such views anywhere else. [Nobody 19 Nov 2004]

The notion that Plato was wrong to feel no gratitude toward Athens and democracy for letting him speak without killing him is, to say the least, shorn of any appreciation of context. Plato's views were moulded by the fact that the same democracy HAD killed his beloved mentor, Socrates. Periclean Athens didn't love "individualism," -- like mobs everywhere, what it loved was conformity. --Christofurio 14:59, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

The point made was not that Athens did not kill Plato, rather that his beloved Sparta would have killed someone who would have attacked its very essence the way Plato did with Athens. The view that the Athenian demos was a mob is very popular among those who dislike democracy and focus on this particular event and the destruction of Melos, completely disregarding the fact that it was this 'mob' that made all the wise decisions that made Athens the marvel of history, provided fertile social environment for individualism more then any other society in history. A nice example is tragedy and in particular 'Persians', a anti-war play that underlined that humanity and tragic fate of Persian people under the hubris of Xerxes, was given first prize at the height of the Peloponesian war (compare this with the current demonising of enemies popular in our culture). I fail to understand where you see conformity in a city that produced most if not all of the philosophical movements we now know. Plato' achievement is reflected in your views, which are effectively his views, a good measure of his genius. Don't forget that the Athens that condemned Socrates did so at a time of a humiliateing and catastrophic defeat in war, condemned someone that refused to opt for a lesser sentence, critisised its institutions when they were most threatened by the military defeat and condemned him by a very thin margin of majority. We all agree that is was a very bad decision as it was often shouted in theater at the time ('you have killed the best of Hellas').

Effectively your views are that democracy is not a good idea because people are effectively mobs, not wise enough for self government, but wise enough to elect wise people to represent them. This is a self-defeating argument of course.

You fail to understand where I find conformity in the history of Athens? Well ... you might start by considering that Socrates was not the only philosopher they threatened. Protagoras has to leave the city to avoid punishment, a few years before Socrates' refusal to leave forced them to follow the logic of their coercion to its end. Later on, when Athenians learned that Aristotle has ties to the Macedonian royal family ... he, too had to leave. He is supposed to have said, "I will not stay and let this city sin once more against philosophy." My personal view is that he probably also muttered under his breath, "especially not on me."

Yes, Athenian expulsions were a fairly regular event, and that does sound like a conformist mobocracy to me.

And, no, Athens did not "produce" the various philosophical movements with which ancient Greece is associated. Consider the cities of Ionia, consider Elea, etc. before you make such a sweeping statement. Were they all democracies, too?

And, no, I don't hold the "self defeating" opinion you attribute to me. I don't believe that people are wide enough to elect wise people to represent them. I neither believe in direct nor in representational democracy. My own view is that the whole idea of sovereignty is a myth, the whole notion that anybody needs to "rule" anybody needs revision. The Hellenic movements with which I have most in common are the Cynics and the Skeptics (with capital letters in each case) -- both of which schools (rightly) venerated the example of Socrates.

At any rate, the point of wikipedia isn't to debate but to create a free on-line encyclopedia. Are these debating points of yours relevant to what should or shouldn't be in this or any other article? (I enjoy polemics, but I'm just wondering....) --Christofurio 21:46, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

--Silverback Anonymous one, the argument is not necessarily self-defeating. Wisdom may not be the issue, time to deliberate may be the issue. It takes less time to determine which of the local available candidates have the character, values and judgement that you trust to represent you than it does to decide and vote on all the issues for yourself. So, there is an efficiency argument to representative government also, it is more efficient to have a few deliberate than everybody. Others are thereby freed for other productive persuits.--Silverback 13:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[nobodyn] Well said and so we come to focus on the very point, the excuse, of the current system of representation that we erroneously call democracy. It is more productive to spent less time on politics (by restricting the near totality of people to the 'political' action of electing once every few years) and much more on 'productive' activities. There are two aspects to this, one historical and one of preference. We are to belive that the nation states and the empires that preceded them [they were not at all democratic] had too many people to allow for participatory democracy and consciously opted for representation to keep the nation entity alive and manageable under one authority. The argument for economic efficiency followed later. Such developments were naturally in the right direction considering what preceded them. Most of human history is an effort to free humans from necessity initially using animals, later slaves and lately machines does not mean that the economic side of social life has been always a dominant factor throughout history, much less that it should be. The arrival of capitalism and of philosophers like Marx played the critical role in our view of homo-sapiens as homo-economicus. Communists implemented this view with unfortunate results by arguing that they would do it more efficiently and in a egalitarian way; logically they abilished politics for a while since the mob was restricted to party-line politics. Spectacularly they failed on both accounts.

However any political discussion of what kind of society we prefer to live in asks the question of how much democracy we are prepared to scarifice in the altar of economic efficiency? Or in other words what 'culture-kind' of society we prefer to live in, that of contemporary no-participation consumerism or that of Plato’s symposium. In any case we know only the former and can only imagine the later from available information. In order however to return to the original question, representation whatever its historical origins or excuses offered for it may be it is not democracy, it is something else, at best liberal oligarchy that lately drifts towards totalitarianism expressed as authoritative decisions by leaders, appointed or elected, that are clearly against majority opinion and other phenomena like the patriot act or Putin's latest rules for elections for example.

If representation works by allowing the choosing of the best wisest characters to lead how do you explain Hitler or Bush to take one old and one contemporary example of elected people whose wisdom is ..... questionable ? Do not forget that Milosevic, Hitler, Alliende, Churchill, Berlusconi, Blair etc were all elected. It seems that the mob cannot even elect good leaders. It is or this reason that we still have referendums, unfortunatelly very seldom thanks to the inefficiency of holding them often in places of many mllions of people, as a safeguard against bad leader decisions. How nice that the decision on what and if and when to have a referendum rests almost entirely with the very people it is supposed to protect from if needed. Certainly representation has problems while democracy, by demanding immediate responsibility, breeds a different person from today's no-voting hard-working consumer.

I am not anonymous, what is your name? not Silverback I presume.

Begin --Silverback 21:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous one, by not registering you lack continuity. You also have a habit of not signing to demarcate your comments. Even in the real world, I am free to choose my name (and I am considering doing so), why not here? I can accept most of your points as an argument for purity, however, representative democracy is still called democracy in the english speaking world. Certainly, any democracy, representative or not should be limited. I doubt you can make a case that in today's mass societies the persons would be all that different or more responsible. Perhaps there would be some social discipline if the secret ballot were eliminated, but that might also increase herd behavior. Would you eliminate the delegation of all deliberative power for instance even to juries and have the total populace involved in all criminal and civil cases? If so, it sounds like your democracy has practical limits in the population size for which it can work.--Silverback 21:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Begin][nobodyn] This ‘practicality’ excuse is all that remains today to justify and rationalise the current system. But the large societies of today were created by the non-democratic empires that preceded them either through gradual reform or as nationalism and revolutions against repression; to be brief the choice is simple: do we prefer democracy and autonomy at local levels or oligarchy and certainly no autonomy at large scale? You presume that having central government for tens or hundreds of million of people is a status quo, the only practical possibility, and if we are to hear other singing in the same tune, the best of all choices. However if we remove the ‘large-scale’ pre-condition you have no arguments left. It is, I admit, a question of choice. I’d sacrifice economic efficiency for more democracy anytime. Communists did the opposite and so do current economists of the cost-effectiveness schools.

[End Nobody]

Perhaps it would help if you would explain what it is you like about democracy, that would entice you to give up the wealth of technology, research, knowledge, variety of possible mates, cultures and services of mass society. Is there pleasure in communal voting? peacefulness in waiting for consensus? There seems to be some sense in which you are viewing democracy as an end, rather than a means to avoid certain ends.--Silverback 11:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right to vote

One section looks suspect to me.

Recreational drug users are another sizable minority, which often claims to be oppressed by the majority through the implementation of popular anti-drug laws. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.

Maybe one or two countries, but many countries? Which democratic countries in recent times have had laws on the book depriving people of the right to vote for committing crimes? It's true that prisoners are not permitted to vote in many countries, but I believe that it is the rule that they are then permitted to vote once they are freed. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 21:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the United States, I think it is a state by state issue, although Federal felonies may override this. Because of the disproportionate number of minorities convicted of drug felonies, this is a particularly contentious issue, since they view the drug war as an attempt to disenfranchise minorities. Someday, hopefully we will honor these freedom fighters rather than disenfranchising them.--Silverback 23:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the facts: Unless we can find many other countries that actively disenfranchise convicts, I suggest that the wording should be changed. At present I'm only aware of one or two US states (notably Florida) that disenfranchise felons even after they've served their sentences. There may be other countries with government by representative democracy where this is done, but I'm not aware of any. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 01:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are fourteen states that do not restore a felons right to vote even after they have completely served their time and probation. I thought it was more, perhaps we should not go on our own awareness. Fortunately, the point being made would apply to those who aren't allowed to vote even while they are serving their sentences, which is just as bad, recall it is just drug "offenses" that we are talking about here. On the international scale, at least 8 European countries, disenfranchise automatically after sentencing. --Silverback 02:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you must be wrong about Europe, though. Most European countries are signatories of the Council of Europe, and human rights legislation is subject to the European Court, which is a little like the US Supreme Court in the USA as far as civil rights are concerned. You'll be glad to know that recently the European Court ruled that the blanket disenfranchisement of imprisoned offenders in the United Kingdom, while they are still in custody, is contrary to the European Declaration. This will apply to other countries that do the same thing. Hirst v. United Kingdom

I think "Europe" was being defined more broadly, "In contrast, the UK and eight other countries including Bulgaria, Romania and Russia are in a minority of European countries in automatically disenfranchising all sentenced prisoners." [1] I don't vouch for the authoratativeness of the source. I found lots of contradictory information, most of which led me to believe there has not been a formal survey or peer reviewed classification of the different schemes employed throughout the world. The lack of such a survey and the nature of the contradictions, lead me to believe the number of countries that disenfranchise to some extent is underestimated. Thanx for the European Declaration information, that is a step in the right direction.--Silverback 06:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are two issues here, both called "losing the right to vote." In Florida, for instance, a citizen convicted of a felony in Florida or any other state is disenfranchised for life (a disenfranchisement that has been implemented scandalously poorly, as Greg Palast and others have shown). In the UK, the deprivation of the right to vote, which the European Court decided was a breach of the UK's commitments in the European Declaration, extends only to the period of incarceration. I think that the distinction should be made clear in the article, because permanent disenfranchisement removes all possibility of rehabilitation of a convicted person. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 10:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Goddammit, Greg Palast. That ugly sack of socialist scum (hey I made a tongue-twister!!)

By the way, the Council of Europe is nowadays very large. [2]. There are 46 member states, including not only the original states of Western Europe but also many states of Central and Eastern Europe including Bulgaria, Romania and the Russian Federation. All are bound by the decisions of the court. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway ^Talk ]] 10:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Burke quote

That quote from Edmund Burke was obviously grabbed from this web article (notice the date) http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:0RpAbRIh_jMJ:www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx%3Fcontrol%3D1504+%22absolute+monarchy,+is+not+to+be+reckoned+among+the+legitimate%22+&hl=en but it's somewhat misquoted, and if you read the article you see that the way it's used here is misleading. Burke is talking about a specific aspect of the French government c. 1789-1791. 68.118.61.219 02:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elections as rituals

Ruy Lopez - I'm not sure why you have been deleting the examples supplied under this heading - they seem good ones to me. So I've restored them for now. Are there others that you think are better? I would suggest it's helpful if these are taken from a different political colours. What do other people think? On a slightly separate point I took out "like the United States" from the end of the second para of this section - I don't think it adds much and comes across as a bit arrogant and non-encyclopedic in tone. More importantly, what point is the second paragraph of this section trying to make - I'm not sure I understand it so I think it needs improving. Can anyone help? --Cjnm 13:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've done a good job on the 1st paragraph. The "like the United States" was vandalism, if someone has a conceptual framework that supports its inclusion here, they should supply more detail, rather than a snide dependent clause.--Silverback 14:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would put something like "the Western world" or "as in Western countries" because (obviously) the West has had the best track record in modern history with democratic societies. Trey Stone 22:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what measure is being used to determine that an election is a ritual in a country, and doesn't make it a real democracy, in the case of the USSR, Iraq, Uganda and Iran I suppose the crime of not submitting to the US is what determines this (although Marcos had been thrown in for good measure). This is POV and will be removed. Ruy Lopez 16:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try freedom of speech, more than one party, a real choice, although in the US the two major parties often run to the middle blurring their distinctions. --Silverback 21:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there is consensus for the changes you want to make, so you will have to convince people that they are an improvement. To answer your question, the paragraph seems to be about where governments have organised things called "elections", but without in practice allowing people to have a say in relation to which people are in the positions in power. The examples given seem good examples of this to me. Please don't delete them without convincing people why this is a good idea. --Cjnm 10:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's it. From here on I deem Ruy Lopez a joke account. 'Cuz, ya know, no one's this stupid. J. Parker Stone 10:32, 18 Dec 2004