The Death of Democracy

[Venture]

@HaHaHa

I am saying since the time of Pericles and Cleisthenes that the political organization known as democracy has been oligarchical in nature where no true uncorrupted form of democracy has ever existed beyond paper.

This is what I mean when I say no true democracy has ever existed in history.

Any kind of government sponsored democracy by its very definition is a controlled and influenced one.

So could you be implying that there are alternatives to all the various forms Democracy which are less oligarchical? Or less corrupted?

What do you mean by ‘true’ Democracy?

Are you implying that Athenian Democracy was the most favourable form of Democracy to date?

Are you implying that all variant forms of Democracy since Pericles have intended to function benevolently in principle, but not in reality? Which cases in particular are most corrupted in your view? ~ (assuming you think there are absolutely no successful cases of Democracy after the Hellenistic age)

What are you speculations for Democratic nations in this century and are these projections justifiably so?

Your premises arrive at seemingly self-explanatory conclusions without tying everything together with coherent argument and evidence. More explanation and elaboration would be appreciated.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I’m implying that the history of democracy around the planet have in no way been successful period.

Are you implying that all variant forms of Democracy since Pericles have intended to function benevolently in principle, but not in reality?

Yes, also I’m an anarchist.

[Arminius]

@Venture

@Arminius

@Venture

The basic elements a Democracy (not its inhabitants) should guarantee is voting and fair election, protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news.

“Voting and fair election” warranties are the main elements of democracy, “protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news” are main elements of a constitutional state (a state of law). But because the constitutional state can also be called a constitutional democracy, I would say that you are referring to a constitutional democracy. I would nevertheless say that e.g. “protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news” can also be guaranteed without democracy. Democracy is mor a form of government than a form of state. - Anyway. - There has never been a real or 100% democracy in history.

@HaHaHa

The greatest illusion of democracy is that it has never really existed historically in the first place.

I would have to disagree with the last point on the basis that Democracy has existed as various forms of itself; existing at some points in time as more of a state-defined system and at other points in time, strictly a non-concentrated humanistic governance system. The variance between the almost countless forms of Democracy are entirely ambiguous at this point in history. Although you have agreed on a form of constitutional Democracy, I would not say those traits belong exclusively to it. For example, respect for legal entitlements is not exclusive to constitutional Democracy, nor to Democracy as an all-encompassing ambiguous ideal (it could apply even to fascist regimes or socialist oligarchies). The protections of rights and liberties is not necessarily exclusive to constitutional Democracy, but definitely seems to prove recurrence throughout Democratic systems since Charlemagne. Democracy could be characterized constitutionally, economically, systematically, lawfully, or in most cases, a mix of all these prior characterizations with the illusory affects of corruption and complex legislative structures.

Maybe it is better to define “democracy” in order to avoid misunderstandings.

“Democracy” means “popular government” / “popular sovereignty”, thus that the “people” (“demos”) “govern” (“kratein”), that people have the “power” or at least the main power. This already shows that the word “democracy” is based more on wishful thinking than on real action. In other words: A 100% democracy is not possible. There are always others who have an interest in government but no interest at all in democracy. Therefore other mechanisms are needed to implement democracy, for eample: state of law (constitutional state - as I already said) and division of powers. But there are nevertheless not enough mechanisms for a 100% democracy. It is just not possible because of nature, of life, especially of the human nature and life.

The best prospects for having a democracy are: homogeneity, a common enemy (a natural or a cultural one) or something like a (seemingly) permanent danger, and everyone must be needed (compare: “SAM”).

[size=80](Greetings from Maleswhale, by the way.)[/size]