The Death of Democracy

[Venture]

In accordance with the work of Fukuyama, our egalitarian herd morality is becoming redundant and teleological apocalyptic. It should be easier for anyone to argue, at this point in history, that an organic growth of Democracy is no longer possible as opposed to the more recent moral justification of exporting Democracy to countries that are not value-laden with Western liberalism. There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views. These preconditions include things like literacy, educational institutions, a thriving middle class, urbanization, low birth rates, reliable bureaucratic institutions and other ideals of what exists in the most hegemonic Democracies to date; the ideals which pre-exist within successful Democratic nations in principle. These socio-economic preconditions can develop in many ways, but the most notable examples are through i) Lee Kuan Yew hypothesis or ii) corporate globalizing infrastructure.

The first methodological condition for creating socio-economic preconditions for a functioning Democratic system is not at all favourable in my opinion. Through the affects of disciplined neo-authoritarianism, countries like Singapore, post reform China, Pakistan (1993), South Korea and Turkey, experience rapid phases of economic growth for most, if not the entirety of the population. The main problem the Lee hypothesis encounters is ironically a moral problem. Although (in the rare cases of benign authoritarian leadership creating this condition) these countries do experience some sort of economic growth spurt, there is no systematic approach to dealing with sudden moral changes in an absolutist governance. This can result in seriously negative repercussions of surprisingly heinous decisions (e.g. Fujimori, Pinochet) which affect the general population of that country with a morally personal standard. To developed Western nations, these random economic progressions and moral dilemmas are laughable. The higher development of Democratic legislations result in complex power struggles between corporations (large privatized economies), lawmaking officials and politicians.

The next point I would like to make is more favourable than the former because it will indeed concur with most who can understand it. A globalized materialism encourages corporate monopolies to become more relevant than politics in so far as not only does it more effectively provide those preconditions suitable for an organic Democracy, but provides us with our basic material needs and wants with a modern response of immediacy, satisfaction and occupation. As the UN becomes more and more like a supranational relief agency, corporate monopolies continue to rule our pampered lives with globalized investments. Privatized public wealth is becoming both more sizable but also less concentrated. Corporations will soon resemble a technologically supreme version of Hellenistic oligarchies which regulate themselves. As Westerners become immersed in a materialistic lifestyle of immediate satisfaction and occupational redundancy, Democratic governance becomes more limited in creating regulations which properly serves public interests as I'm sure the corporate demands naturally work this out for themselves to cater to consumers. The invisible hand is preparing to flick the pesky bureaucracies of Western Democracy ff the shoulders of the overburdened complexities of the ignorant masses to create a hybrid ruling of futuristic monopoly.

The death of democracy will be due to corporate globalization and internal decay from Democracy's own egalitarian masses. Of course this statement is up for debate, as I will provide a brief definition of what the basic elements of Democracy are. I will also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of living with corporate globalization. I would also love to discuss any diverging perspectives unless they are unsupported claims for armageddon. 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. These are only basic aspects which are highly transfigured into the mixed economies and cultural backgrounds which I am sure we all could argue about. This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now. Although it is relevant to discuss these elements to understand your perspective of Democracy in the future, that discussion should be denoted as secondary to the speculations for the future of Democracy, not only focusing on the incredible advantages or ideological fallacies of the current state of Democracy.

The advantages of living with corporate globalization reside in three main realities. The first is the reality of egalitarian multiculturalism. Ideological freedom will produce a higher social standard of public determination, cooperation and progression towards a communal way of living. People will be more easily satisfied and more aware of what is going on. The second reality is the investments for clean energy and new, quasi-futuristic, technology; resembling a space age. It may be exhilarating as it will also be terrifying (as it always has been) to witness the new developments in publicly accessible technologies. The third reality is progressive research in tangibly beneficial fields - most importantly, medical research. The technological advances of medical research, public accessibility and daily occupation will be incredibly active and profitable. Making luxuries into commonalities, the world will advance into a space age.

The disadvantages of living with corporate globalization will can be broken down into three vague concepts. The first is moral, the second economic,the third is intellectual. The moral aspects of daily life will become more confusing in so far as it makes less sense not to follow a herd morality for the sake of material benefits and hierarchical social structures which are primitively rewarding. As a globalized culture abides to the consumerism of corporate globalization, ancient conflicts will either be resolved for the sake of material benefits with a personally beneficial lifestyle of seemingly awesome wealth, or these conflicts will be completely excluded from the meting pot of corporate investment. The second economic problem has to do with personalized wealth and oligarchical infrastructure of possibly oppressive corporate regimes. The masses will be manufactured to the point of robotic plasticity of obeying every command, to buy every new toy, to love the whole and the product. The third disadvantage of corporate globalization is awakening the intellect. We will have to gradually realize our stupidity on a large scale. We will be able to affirm that 'we know we know nothing' in order to make the next step in intellectual conscientiousness. We will have this ability because will all be couch potatoes with little to no meaning in our lives other than living for material standards for the masses.

There are other speculations I have regarding the future of Democratic societies and Democracies themselves. The first is essentially Marxist. How will there be any other forms of Historiography which s not fundamentally Marxist? The other speculation is that of the age and population gap. What will be the consequences of having a large population die off (baby boomers) and a large population grow up (generation y and millennials) both economically and ideologically? The final speculation has to do with the death of teleology. This does not necessarily imply nihilism, or religious decay worldwide, but what it does necessarily imply is the common consensus of giving up on that familiar transcendence to some sort of 'final' or 'end' stage of life. For example, Marx believed this finality was communism, Hegel had some ideas of his own on this teleological finality too. But what will be the consequences of this realization mean for the whole of humanity? How will progression of technology, science, morality and systematic governance coincide?

This entire post is problematic and I encourage anyone and everyone to prove me wrong or elaborate upon my ideas in respectful, philosophical matter. All the ideas I have posted here are fragments of what I really want to discuss in this thread. The tip of the iceberg is better than no iceberg at all, so let's discuss. I know there are related threads on ILP (e.g. what will replace capitalism), but I find it fascinating to explore the political and socio-economic implications of corporate globalization. The very last point I would like to make regarding the title of this article is the impossibility of retaining a functioning Democratic system. There are two perspectives of country-democracy relationships. One is to have country be fit for Democracy, and the other most modern perspective, developed in the twentieth century, is to have country become fit because of Democracy. The latter is unattainable and essentially arrogant; only upheld by moral justifications, rarely anyhing instrumental results with this approach (fuck you Reagan, Bush, UN and NSA). The former is favourable. Having a country deemed fit for democracy has resulted in some of the most successful historical accounts of a functioning Democracy. However, modernity will obstruct the possibilities of having such prosperous preconditions arise because the latter is too heavily relied upon and corporate globalization is proving to be the most powerful source of progressive, systematic relief of past political obligations which had negative repercussions on their peoples. Once corporations hold socio-economic and political power, I doubt they will give it up for creating a functioning Democratic system in those countries for which they substantiated the preconditions to make a country deemed fit for Democracy. I will enjoy debating the multitude of topics expressed in this short post. The Death of Democracy is long process, but nonetheless, inevitable.

[Mr Reasonable]

Our egalitarian herd morality is becoming redundant and teleological apocalyptic?

How so?

[Venture]

It is becoming redundant because millennials are fulfilling a technological prophecy of corporate rule. Our materialistic needs our widening as they become more individualized. The teleology of someone like Marx or de Saint-Simon accurately envisioned some of the underpinning developments of the past century. In my opinion, after the enlightenment (although it could obviously have affect earlier, early as Byzantium trade developments, just not as great of an influence), western civilization was essentially economic. Currency was not only widespread and necessary, but gained a meaning within our daily lives. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we can see a leap of values towards what our national investments are. Nothing is free, most things cost money. How does a Marxist historian perspective connect to our egalitarian herd morality becoming redundant? I will say first of all, I am a millennial, so I already see patterns for the lifestyles of my generation. Obviously there is 'good', and with a critical mind, an incredible amount of 'bad'. Trending technology and corporate rule has already taken a huge step toward becoming part of our everyday (every hour I would argue) lives. For example, although this a personal example I will give better ones (more practical/applicable to others), if I stand in a line for coffee for more than one minute, at least 75% of the people standing in the line will pull out their phones (to go on snapchat, to text someone, to continue shopping online, to do ebanking, to read an ebook, etc.). I am identifying this as a social phenomena with far reaching impact. Never before has there been such a continuous need to feel busy and comfortable with yourself by having an intimate relationship with a technology or brand. Along with this technological crutch, my generation is growing into an extremely diversified meta-culture of prejudice against prejudice.

This will eventually lead to a culture of no culture because we our so disgusted by anyone who violently upholds a belief system that shows prejudice to another. This is one of the fundamental aspects of what I mean by egalitarian. Although I personally believe egalitarianism to be fallacious (we are looking for pure equity not equality, of course we cannot all be equal), our herd morality (being constantly subject to a technological crutch which we enjoy) has driven us to be so diversified and so densely coerced, that we have met some of the standards set by those who had a futuristic teleology of a final stage in human development. This includes Marx, but many others, which identify this valuing of values to be the last step in the evolution of the intellect. 'Teleological apocalyptic' would mean meeting the final end for which the means have brought us too because of these egalitarian redundancies on such a large scale. As a result, there has been a growing polarity between that which is moral and that which is instrumental; not that the two cannot coincide in a hybrid form, but that the two, from a collectivist perspective, have ultimately reached news means to new ends. Corporate globalization, heightened security measures, and the masses for which socially moral standards and technological needs become high priorities, reveal a new development of human civilization. Towards 'teleological apocalyptic', on one hand, we have become so narcissistically and morally indulged as Westerners, that it is a moral obligation to employ an exported, manufactured version of Democracy to third world countries. Simultaneously, this exportation also serves the needs of those who are completely instrumental, economic one percent who own much of the global wealth. When I say 'our', it is aimed at millennials, not the whole of humanity at the present moment. I do have a bit on what kind of ramifications will concur with the baby boomer-millennial population gap.

By the way, your picture is fuckin' awesome!

[Mr Reasonable]

It is becoming redundant because millennials are fulfilling a technological prophecy of corporate rule?

What does that even mean?

[Venture]

It is becoming redundant because millennials are fulfilling a technological prophecy of corporate rule?

What does that even mean?

It means that our modern needs our meeting the criteria for various teleological predictions which predicated an evolution of Democracy into an all encompassing political rule, in this case it will evolve into corporate rule. Some predicted communism, some universal liberal democracy, some the end of times through nuclear warfare.

[Arminius]

In accordance with the work of Fukuyama, our egalitarian herd morality is becoming redundant and teleological apocalyptic. It should be easier for anyone to argue, at this point in history, that an organic growth of Democracy is no longer possible as opposed to the more recent moral justification of exporting Democracy to countries that are not value-laden with Western liberalism. There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views.

"There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views", although a "growth of democracy is no longer possible"? Did you mean the former in accordance with the work of Fukuyama?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The greatest illusion of democracy is that it has never really existed historically in the first place. Government controlled democracy is oligarchical to its core.

[Arminius]

In accordance with the work of Fukuyama, our egalitarian herd morality is becoming redundant and teleological apocalyptic. It should be easier for anyone to argue, at this point in history, that an organic growth of Democracy is no longer possible as opposed to the more recent moral justification of exporting Democracy to countries that are not value-laden with Western liberalism. There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views.

"There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views", although a "growth of democracy is no longer possible"? Did you mean the former in accordance with the work of Fukuyama?

For comparison only: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185646 .

[Venture]

In accordance with the work of Fukuyama, our egalitarian herd morality is becoming redundant and teleological apocalyptic. It should be easier for anyone to argue, at this point in history, that an organic growth of Democracy is no longer possible as opposed to the more recent moral justification of exporting Democracy to countries that are not value-laden with Western liberalism. There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views.

"There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views", although a "growth of democracy is no longer possible"? Did you mean the former in accordance with the work of Fukuyama?

For comparison only: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185646 .

I will read that thread later tonight. I am trying to say that any teleological perspective of a final stage is misleading but always has underlying characteristics/explanations which are evident in how we live in modern day. An organic growth of Democracy is impossible, a manufactured exportation of Democracy is never true Democracy, the future is at stakes with millennials and corporate globalism (moral vs instrumental), and the process of seeing countries become fit through, not fit for, Democracy is what ultimately caused Democracy's demise; a self-contradiction of growing internal moralism to deploy ideals without preconditions because of our Western naivety as an advanced Democracy.

[phyllo]

Have you actually defined what you mean by 'democracy'?

[Mr Reasonable]

Have you actually defined what you mean by 'democracy'?

When someone has to type 2000 words to make a point on a forum post, you can bet that at least half of what they typed is intended to obfuscate a much simpler point. I always think, "what a coward, why doesn't he just say what he means?"

[Venture]

Have you actually defined what you mean by 'democracy'?

"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. These are only basic aspects which are highly transfigured into the mixed economies and cultural backgrounds which I am sure we all could argue about. This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now. Although it is relevant to discuss these elements to understand your perspective of Democracy in the future, that discussion should be denoted as secondary to the speculations for the future of Democracy, not only focusing on the incredible advantages or ideological fallacies of the current state of Democracy."

This was stated in the OP. If you would like to discuss what you agree and disagree with, I would happily abide.

When someone has to type 2000 words to make a point on a forum post, you can bet that at least half of what they typed is intended to obfuscate a much simpler point. I always think, "what a coward, why doesn't he just say what he means?"

I have obfuscated some ideas in this post but it is more suitable for you to demand clarification or engaging discussion. 2000 words is barely a Sunday morning shit stain compared to other papers I have written. I have not made one simple point in this post, but many complex/disputable ones which have yet to be unraveled. Instead of attacking me personally, explain why you think this entire argument is obfuscated, fallacious or misleading.

[phyllo]

"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. These are only basic aspects which are highly transfigured into the mixed economies and cultural backgrounds which I am sure we all could argue about. This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now. Although it is relevant to discuss these elements to understand your perspective of Democracy in the future, that discussion should be denoted as secondary to the speculations for the future of Democracy, not only focusing on the incredible advantages or ideological fallacies of the current state of Democracy."

That was buried in the fourth paragraph of the OP. Seems fairly vague.

There are lots of governments where people can vote but it doesn't mean anything in practical terms. Lots of dictators get 99% of the vote.
What are the rights and liberties that would be protected in a democracy as opposed to another system? For example, communists guarantee 100% employment. Why don't democracies do the same?
All news is censored to some degree. What's reasonable censorship?

"This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now." - Is democracy alive now? That has to be the starting point of the discussion. Then one can move on to the death of democracy.

[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. These are only basic aspects which are highly transfigured into the mixed economies and cultural backgrounds which I am sure we all could argue about. This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now. Although it is relevant to discuss these elements to understand your perspective of Democracy in the future, that discussion should be denoted as secondary to the speculations for the future of Democracy, not only focusing on the incredible advantages or ideological fallacies of the current state of Democracy."

That was buried in the fourth paragraph of the OP. Seems fairly vague.

There are lots of governments where people can vote but it doesn't mean anything in practical terms. Lots of dictators get 99% of the vote.
What are the rights and liberties that would be protected in a democracy as opposed to another system? For example, communists guarantee 100% employment. Why don't democracies do the same?
All news is censored to some degree. What's reasonable censorship?

"This thread is about what Democracy will be in the near future, not what it is now." - Is democracy alive now? That has to be the starting point of the discussion. Then one can move on to the death of democracy.

Democracy is in an elderly state of self-contradiction and contagious preaching. Democracy is in the process of dying because of what you asked. The elements I listed were only the seemingly guaranteed aspects of a 'true' Democracy. Democracy can produce tyranny or decay (e.g. Cromwell, Hitler, Habyarimana, Mussolini, etc.). Democratic rights and liberties are generally ambiguous and change over time because the needs of society change. A Communist's ideal of employment could be much different than a Democratic ideal of employment. Democratic employment rights and liberties are ambiguous in so far as they give the individual a choice of not working or choosing enjoyable work, which in both cases, is never a manageable reality. Concerning reasonable censorship, who is to decide what is reasonable? Should that power reside within national or municipal jurisdiction? Should corporations or the distributors of news be able to make their own policies on reasonable limitation on censorship? Or should all cases be left to the public or the consumers of that which is censored (who might be considered most important stakeholders)?

Is Democracy alive now?

Well, what is Democracy? Does a 'true' or 'just' version of Democracy exist at all? In my opinion, Democracy has been deteriorating since the early 1960s and is reaching the final stages of dying; evolving into a new form of global oligarchy.

[phyllo]

Is Democracy alive now?

Well, what is Democracy? Does a 'true' or 'just' version of Democracy exist at all?

I asked that and I still don't have an answer.

In my opinion, Democracy has been deteriorating since the early 1960s and is reaching the final stages of dying; evolving into a new form of global oligarchy.

That means that you think prior to 1960, there was something which was a legitimate democracy. What/where was it and what were its characteristics?

[Arminius]

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.

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

[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.

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.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I have a challenge for everybody in this thread and you only get five days to complete it. Show one single instance of human history of a pure unadulterated form of government managed and controlled democracy. I just want one single example shown in this thread.

For something to die it had to exist in the first place, right? Let's call this the democratic challenge.

Ready, set, go!

[Venture]

I have a challenge for everybody in this thread and you only get five days to complete it. Show one single instance of human history of a pure unadulterated form of government managed and controlled democracy. I just want one single example shown in this thread.

There is no pure, unadulterated form of Democracy (is there a pure unadulterated first-order form of anything that does not beg the question?). There are only variations of fundamental Democratic elements. When you say 'democracy' in your post, you have to create meaning for it by relating it to other systems of governance or other forms of Democracy. You obviously have a conception of what Democracy entails terminologically, so just because you have an abrasive view towards Democracy, does not imply that you think it never existed. In order to negate the affects of Democracy, you must believe there were affects in the first place, and that each possessed a Democratic resemblance. There are countless occurrences of seemingly Democratic systems, but one of the points of 'The Death of Democracy' was not to take jabs at Democracy and analyze its nature and origin; I was hoping to discuss the evolution and possible demise of Democracy because of a more globalized or oligarchical systems of governance in the near future. I'm not sure what you mean by 'managed and controlled', maybe something along the lines of disciplinarian stabilization? Maybe neo-authoritarianism? Are you trolling or contributing something thoughtful to this thread? With you, I'm never sure.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

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.

[Venture]

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]

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.

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").

(Greetings from Maleswhale, by the way.)