Can democracy be a majority vote in favour of a dictator?

[Mossling]

"Democracy is a political form of government where governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).[...]
Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times." Wiki: Democracy

Can democracy be a majority vote in favour of a dictator?

Yes? No? Why?

Dictators are not always bad of course - maybe a peoples' chosen dictator makes better choices than a whole bunch of people arguing...?

It seems there is an argument that supports the idea that any kind of person who rises to power has, in some form, been 'elected' democratically.

(I kid you not, after googling democracy and submitting this post, I saw a few thumbnails of cartoons, so I decided to click on one and it just happened to be this one...lol)

[neuro]

I think the major - intrinsic - problem of dictatorship w.r.t. democracy is irreversibility.
Actually dictators in ancient Rome were by definition "pro tempore", thereby indicating that some kind of higher norm or power persisted during dictatorship and was supposed to take again control in a defined period.
I am quite sensitive to the problem as currently in Italy an ongoing process of concentration of economic and political power and control over information in the hands of a person tends to realize a form of irreversible evolution (by dismanteling cultural institutions and public universities, reducing the freedom of information and magistrature), which in my opinion shares the fundamental feature of dictatorship, independent of the remaining degree of freedom and reasonable equality.

[neuro]

it may be appropriate to say that in the above I used the term "delusion" in its medical sense = delirium, aberrant and self-inconsistent (mis)perception of reality

[CanadysPeak]

In general, yes.

In the case of the US, almost certainly no. All 50 states would have to agree to amend the Constitution to add a dictator, so that would (in our representative form of democracy) constitute a unanimous vote rather than a majority one.

[kudayta]

In general, yes.

In the case of the US, almost certainly no. All 50 states would have to agree to amend the Constitution to add a dictator, so that would (in our representative form of democracy) constitute a unanimous vote rather than a majority one.

That's not entirely correct CanadysPeak. Under the US Constitution, two-thirds of each house of Congress must propose an amendment (or when two-thirds of the states' legislatures call for a constitutional convention, which would then be able to propose amendments) to the Constitution and then it's ratified upon three-fourths of the states' approval. Under this system, it's possible that a minority of American citizens could successfully amend the Constitution.

[kidjan]

"Democracy is a political form of government where governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy).[...]
Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', equality and freedom have been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times." Wiki: Democracy

Can democracy be a majority vote in favour of a dictator?

Yes? No? Why?

No, because a dictator "...is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes but not always with military control)." Although there may be no "universally accepted definition of democracy," one of the (very) basic tenets is "governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy)."

So let's assume a hypothetical. Let's pretend the citizens of the United States love Barack Obama so much that they decide to pass a constitutional amendment making him the commander-in-chief-for-life-with-absolutely-limitless-power, thus making him a total dictator and removing Congress from the equation. And let's assume it somehow passes. At that point, you no longer have a democracy, because governing power is no longer in the hands of the people--they have given away their rights to elect officials and participate in government by granting power to a dictator.

Just because a democracy willingly turns itself into a dictatorship doesn't mean the dictatorship is still a democracy.

Dictators are not always bad of course - maybe a peoples' chosen dictator makes better choices than a whole bunch of people arguing...?

It seems there is an argument...that any kind of person who rises to power has...been 'elected' democratically.

Definitely not following you here, it's pretty clear most dictators are lousy and dictatorships are generally terrible governments. And I'm struggling to see how a military coup, invasion by foreign power or use of fear/oppression/censorship to retain power could in any way be mistaken for a democratic election.

[kidjan]

In general, yes.

In the case of the US, almost certainly no. All 50 states would have to agree to amend the Constitution to add a dictator, so that would (in our representative form of democracy) constitute a unanimous vote rather than a majority one.

That's not entirely correct CanadysPeak. Under the US Constitution, two-thirds of each house of Congress must propose an amendment (or when two-thirds of the states' legislatures call for a constitutional convention, which would then be able to propose amendments) to the Constitution and then it's ratified upon three-fourths of the states' approval. Under this system, it's possible that a minority of American citizens could successfully amend the Constitution.

I think given the type of amendment this post is insinuating, the fine print of Article 5 definitely applies:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Because moving to a dictatorship would deprive a state of its "equal Suffrage in the Senate," it would not be possible to amend the U.S. Constitution to turn it into a dictatorship, unless that dictatorship somehow retained the senate in some meaningful capacity. The first clause of article one is "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

So basically, that clause is not amendable. So long as the Constitution is our governing document, we will have elections. So in this particular instance, I think canady may be right because moving to a dictatorship would require a new governing document to replace the Constitution. And the preferred method for that is unanimous agreement, much like what happened with the Articles of Confederation's replacement by the Constitution. Certainly for something like this...unanimous consent would be pretty important.

[kudayta]

While that's an excellent point kidjan, I think it's still possible to have a dictator with a legislature (much as how the Romans still had a Senate during Julius Caesar's reign). And furthermore, those 38 states that make up a three-fourths approval could also remove their own representation in the Senate under the same outrageous amendment we're hypothesizing about. So you could have Obama as Dictator-for-Life with just 24 Senators.

[CanadysPeak]

In general, yes.

In the case of the US, almost certainly no. All 50 states would have to agree to amend the Constitution to add a dictator, so that would (in our representative form of democracy) constitute a unanimous vote rather than a majority one.

That's not entirely correct CanadysPeak. Under the US Constitution, two-thirds of each house of Congress must propose an amendment (or when two-thirds of the states' legislatures call for a constitutional convention, which would then be able to propose amendments) to the Constitution and then it's ratified upon three-fourths of the states' approval. Under this system, it's possible that a minority of American citizens could successfully amend the Constitution.

Nope. Article 5, last sentence, says " . . . no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." I assume this dictator is not going to also be a constitutional dictator, sharing power with the Senate? Under any reasonable interpretation, a dictator means no Congress. That violates the Constitution unless all 50 states ratify. I stand by my statement.

[Paul Anthony]

The States did, in fact, deprive themselves of suffrage in the Senate when they allowed the people to elect Senators directly. Originally, Senators were selected by the States - not the general electorate.

Furthermore, Article 5 limited such action to amendments passed prior to 1885.

[CanadysPeak]

The States did, in fact, deprive themselves of suffrage in the Senate when they allowed the people to elect Senators directly. Originally, Senators were selected by the States - not the general electorate.

Furthermore, Article 5 limited such action to amendments passed prior to 1885.

Nope. That semicolon is not bad punctuation; that phrase was added after all the rest as a separate idea. 1885 refers to the other parts.

[Paul Anthony]

The States did, in fact, deprive themselves of suffrage in the Senate when they allowed the people to elect Senators directly. Originally, Senators were selected by the States - not the general electorate.

Furthermore, Article 5 limited such action to amendments passed prior to 1885.

Nope. That semicolon is not bad punctuation; that phrase was added after all the rest as a separate idea. 1885 refers to the other parts.

My mistake. I am recovering from a stomach flu, and any reference to colons, semi or otherwise, makes me nauseous, so I ignored it! LOL

(I would still argue that the States no longer enjoy suffrage as originally designed in the Senate, however).

But, to the OP...could a constitutional amendment to remove Presidential term limits be construed as a step toward a dictatorship? There are many dictators who put on a show of running for reelection periodically (unopposed, of course) and are assured of winning.

[CanadysPeak]

Paul,

The idea of suffrage in Article V was fundamentally a small state protection issue. They were more interested in having a body in which Delaware, for example, had as much power as Virginia than in how that body was selected. Even some of the Senate powers reflect that. They were quite worried that they would suffer under a fully representational government. I think they had a point in the sense of states being separate; look at the Presidential elections: California, Texas, Pennsylvania, etc overwhelm Vermont, North Dakota, etc, even with the electoral college protections.

[Paul Anthony]

Paul,

The idea of suffrage in Article V was fundamentally a small state protection issue. They were more interested in having a body in which Delaware, for example, had as much power as Virginia than in how that body was selected. Even some of the Senate powers reflect that. They were quite worried that they would suffer under a fully representational government. I think they had a point in the sense of states being separate; look at the Presidential elections: California, Texas, Pennsylvania, etc overwhelm Vermont, North Dakota, etc, even with the electoral college protections.

Yes, I'm sure that was a concern - and, as it turned out, a justifiable one. The Founders couldn't have known there would be states the size of California or Texas, but as a native Rhode Islander, I can appreciate their concern.

In addition to that, the Senate was intended to be manned by statesmen whose loyalties would lie with the interests of the state (and the wealthy land owners who controlled the states), as opposed to the House which was designed to represent the interests of the common man. Although it may seem more democratic to allow the people to elect their Senators, the Founders didn't have that much confidence in government by the masses.

[reconsiderate]

And let's assume it somehow passes. At that point, you no longer have a democracy, because governing power is no longer in the hands of the people--they have given away their rights to elect officials and participate in government by granting power to a dictator.

Just because a democracy willingly turns itself into a dictatorship doesn't mean the dictatorship is still a democracy.

Dictators are not always bad of course - maybe a peoples' chosen dictator makes better choices than a whole bunch of people arguing...?

It seems there is an argument...that any kind of person who rises to power has...been 'elected' democratically.

Definitely not following you here, it's pretty clear most dictators are lousy and dictatorships are generally terrible governments. And I'm struggling to see how a military coup, invasion by foreign power or use of fear/oppression/censorship to retain power could in any way be mistaken for a democratic election.

When people define democracy as majoritarian rule, they forget the whole impetus for popular sovereignty was to check and balance the elite power of a governing elite by subjecting that elite to selection and evaluation by an electorate. This is just one of many checks and balances that are democracy. Democracy is rule by the people, but how can the people be guaranteed power except through subjecting any person(s) or institutions that have power to checking and balancing by other power?

Ultimately, I think democracy is any process that prevents domination of some by others. Democracy is subjection of power to critique, whether through elections, judicial review, or conflicting representatives who prevent each other from unilateral use of force. Of course, it could also be unilateral agents of force dissenting from conformity to collective authority in order to check that authority.

[CanadysPeak]

Paul,

The idea of suffrage in Article V was fundamentally a small state protection issue. They were more interested in having a body in which Delaware, for example, had as much power as Virginia than in how that body was selected. Even some of the Senate powers reflect that. They were quite worried that they would suffer under a fully representational government. I think they had a point in the sense of states being separate; look at the Presidential elections: California, Texas, Pennsylvania, etc overwhelm Vermont, North Dakota, etc, even with the electoral college protections.

Yes, I'm sure that was a concern - and, as it turned out, a justifiable one. The Founders couldn't have known there would be states the size of California or Texas, but as a native Rhode Islander, I can appreciate their concern.

In addition to that, the Senate was intended to be manned by statesmen whose loyalties would lie with the interests of the state (and the wealthy land owners who controlled the states), as opposed to the House which was designed to represent the interests of the common man. Although it may seem more democratic to allow the people to elect their Senators, the Founders didn't have that much confidence in government by the masses.

At the risk of being flippant, the non-democratic process didn't seem so hot in Illinois or West Virginia either!

[Mossling]

Very interesting discussions going on here - I am hoping we can not limit democracy to that which is embraced by the american political model - as Paul Anthony said: "the Founders didn't have that much confidence in government by the masses", I would tend to agree with this idea.

I think the major - intrinsic - problem of dictatorship w.r.t. democracy is irreversibility.
Actually dictators in ancient Rome were by definition "pro tempore", thereby indicating that some kind of higher norm or power persisted during dictatorship and was supposed to take again control in a defined period.

I agree - it seems democracy, in it's more traditional understanding, stops when a dictator takes control. However, I don't think it can be ignored that if the masses - as a majority - cause an uprising and overthrow a dictator, thus replacing the dictator with their own choice of leader, then this is a democratic choice of government as much as if they went to the polls, is it not? I don't think democracy disappears just because a dictator is present. The people who make up the armies which often support dictators are deeply emotionally connected to those people who are being 'dictated to'. I think whole nations have more power over their governance - even under dictatorships - than is normally made out.

Let's pretend the citizens of the United States love Barack Obama so much that they decide to pass a constitutional amendment making him the commander-in-chief-for-life-with-absolutely-limitless-power, thus making him a total dictator and removing Congress from the equation. And let's assume it somehow passes. At that point, you no longer have a democracy, because governing power is no longer in the hands of the people

Really? Noting that "the people" are the majority, and all it takes is a bit of organisation (if prisons can have secret plans and gangs then any freer society can), then I believe the masses always have power. Maybe it is our understanding of historical dictatorships that is lacking somewhat here? Maybe whole nations, losing battles and resources due, to in-fighting and squabbling between smaller family units/factions/provinces, etc., make pessimistic forecasts, panic, and suddenly opt for one sole dictator who seems like they've got the know-how to do what is needed. I'm not saying that this always worked, but sometimes too much deliberation is apparently disastrous when swift, confident, clear and centralized action is needed.

Definitely not following you here, it's pretty clear most dictators are lousy and dictatorships are generally terrible governments.

I was saying that just because someone is a dictator I don't think we should expect them to do a lousy job of it. Historically, yes it seems dictators have been lousy at their jobs, but that isn't a default it seems.

I'm struggling to see how a military coup... or use of fear/oppression/censorship to retain power could in any way be mistaken for a democratic election.

A key question I wish to address on this thread is can power be retained for very long by such methods alone: "a military coup... or use of fear/oppression/censorship". How much do the majority of the people's own desires - unspoken or not - come in to allowing that retention of power?

For example, maybe we can look at Iraq; after foreign forces leave, will it just descend in to something worse than when Saddam was there, because really it wasn't Saddam, but just cultural, economic, geophysical, religious, etc., undertones combining to create such a situation?

Already predictions are flying around regarding the West's pull-out from Afghanistan, and the return of the Taliban in full force. That seems more about religion than political models - and often, especially in these much less developed countries, religion undermines political models. Religion can dictate more than a political leader can, it seems - with one foot in the afterlife, and one foot in the living world, it is positioned to best inform people about what to do. American money - the economic blood of the nation - sends it's message very clearly to any Atheists - it's God all the way.

Maybe the issue is more to with what dictates our general world view - birth, morality, death - than what polictical model we deem to be 'fairer'. If only the Jews are to be saved by the Jewish God, then what use is it to waste 'fair shares' on the condemned others if one has a way to limit their shares? If people refuse to believe in Allah, then why allow infidels to have 'fair shares' if it displeases Allah? If Satan's minions reject God's son, Jesus Christ, as their saviour, then why fuel Satan's cause by giving his minions equal shares? Etc., Etc. It makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately I am an Atheist, so it seems I am losing out more than any of the people belonging to these faiths... :/

Ultimately, I think democracy is any process that prevents domination of some by others.

What about the minority who vote for the smaller political parties then; are they not being dominated? There is always domination of people in a democratic commmunity, it seems, unless there is 100% agreement about everything.

[reconsiderate]

Already predictions are flying around regarding the West's pull-out from Afghanistan, and the return of the Taliban in full force. That seems more about religion than political models - and often, especially in these much less developed countries, religion undermines political models. Religion can dictate more than a political leader can, it seems - with one foot in the afterlife, and one foot in the living world, it is positioned to best inform people about what to do. American money - the economic blood of the nation - sends it's message very clearly to any Atheists - it's God all the way.

Maybe the issue is more to with what dictates our general world view - birth, morality, death - than what polictical model we deem to be 'fairer'. If only the Jews are to be saved by the Jewish God, then what use is it to waste 'fair shares' on the condemned others if one has a way to limit their shares? If people refuse to believe in Allah, then why allow infidels to have 'fair shares' if it displeases Allah? If Satan's minions reject God's son, Jesus Christ, as their saviour, then why fuel Satan's cause by giving his minions equal shares? Etc., Etc. It makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately I am an Atheist, so it seems I am losing out more than any of the people belonging to these faiths... :/

Maybe the solution is to promote more democracy within religion while deconstructing authoritarian or other fear-control uses of religion as social control. In fact, I don't really see the difference between this and democracy viewed as secular, since even the secular model is predicated on JudeoChristian moral assumptions about basic compliance with egalitarian assumptions and limitations of power that support political freedom when it's not one person or faction working against another's freedom. In practice, both secular-atheist and religious ideologies of democracy can be used to create authoritarian power-relations. So, imo, the goal of democracy should be to identify those assertions of democracy ideology that undermine democratic practice and pursue strategies to critically deconstruct them. It could also be to engage and deconstruct authoritarianism and fear-control within religion. There's no reason why people shouldn't be able to freely participate in religion without doing so compulsively out of fear for social consequences.

What about the minority who vote for the smaller political parties then; are they not being dominated? There is always domination of people in a democratic commmunity, it seems, unless there is 100% agreement about everything.

There may always be various impulses or attempts to dominate present in various ways. Party-formation itself is generally dominating insofar as party-members subscribe to the ideology that they must submit to party-oriented governance and conform to party-ideologies. The point is that democracy doesn't occur when the will-to-power is absent - it happens when the will-to-power is balanced among conflicting interests in a way that prevents any from successfully dominating others. When any person or faction becomes convinced to renounce their will to power, that is a victory for anti-democracy - because a person that withdraws their power unbalances power in favor of whoever DOES exercise it in even the smallest way.

That is how the everyday social culture of polite submissiveness works. People generally maintain a submissive or subservient attitude toward others and by doing so, those others are enabled to get their way on most things pretty easily. It's like if everyone drives defensively, it is not hard to change lanes. If everyone drove democratically, changing lanes would be very hard because your power to change lanes would be checked and balanced by everyone "voting" to keep the lane for themselves. People don't agree in democracy - on the contrary they have conflicting interests that they refuse to subjugate to any ruling will. Still, they don't manage to dominate each other as long as they sufficiently resist, check, and balance each other's power in various ways.

[Paul Anthony]

Just because elections are held, there is no reason to believe a dictatorship cannot exist. Party politics creates a situation where a minority of people allegedly represent the majority.

MAJORITY RULE

His party was the Brotherhood of Brothers,
and there were more of them than of the others.
That is, they constituted that minority
which formed the greater part of the majority.

Within the party, he was of the faction
that was supported by the greater fraction.
And in each group, within each group, he sought
the group that could command the most support.

The final group had finally elected
a triumvirate whom they all respected.
Now of these three, two had the final word,
because the two could overrule the third.
One of these two was relatively weak,
so one alone stood at the final peak.

He was THE GREATER NUMBER of the pair
which formed the most part of the three that were
elected by the most of those whose boast
it was to represent the most of most
of most of most of the state -
or of the most of it at any rate.

He never gave himself a moment's slumber
but sought the welfare of the greatest number.
And all the people, everywhere they went,
knew to their cost exactly what it meant
to be dictated to by the majority.
But that meant nothing - they were the minority.

[reconsiderate]

This is why checks and balances of decentralized power is a better model of democracy than domination by a majority. In practice, btw, no majority can dominate without some form of centralized representation, which itself constitutes a governing elite/minority. The only difference is that this governing elite/minority claims the interest of the majority as its raison d'etre. In reality, it is still an elite attempting to exercise dominance. As such its power can be democratized through checking and balancing the same as any other power elite. Ultimately, I think democracy and freedom are defined by faith in voluntary cooperation as opposed to rule by decree in any form.

[kidjan]

Let's pretend the citizens of the United States love Barack Obama so much that they decide to pass a constitutional amendment making him the commander-in-chief-for-life-with-absolutely-limitless-power, thus making him a total dictator and removing Congress from the equation. And let's assume it somehow passes. At that point, you no longer have a democracy, because governing power is no longer in the hands of the people

Noting that "the people" are the majority, and all it takes is a bit of organisation (if prisons can have secret plans and gangs then any freer society can), then I believe the masses always have power.

I think you're operating under false pretenses. Mob rule is not democracy, nor does violent overthrow imply that a democratic government will arise out of what remains. And there's a big distinction between "power" and "governing power" that I think you're failing to address. Furthermore, I never stated it wasn't possible for people to overthrow a dictator, but that does not imply governing power is in the hands of the people. To the contrary, it implies a lack of power I'd associate with an unstable society.

In general, when a dictator is overthrown, they tend to be replaced by another dictator.

For the rest of your comments...they're not applicable to the ones I made, and I'd suggest you start another thread rather than fragment the one you already made.

[reconsiderate]

The reason dictators get overthrown and replaced by another dictator is the will to authority among the people enacting the overthrow. This is why the same people who rally for Bush grow to decry him and then rally for Obama and then decry him. They are searching for a leader to follow. I think democracy emerges when people start to realize that power does not lie in a leader or any form of centralized authority. Once people start to see how power is decentralized and people who appear to be leaders are just individual personalities playing a very limited roll, the possibility of freedom and democracy emerges in their minds because the world becomes a soup of individuals exercising individual initiative instead of a concerted regime of a leader. This is mainly a perceptual shift, but it can vastly alter an individual's perspective on themselves and the mechanics of the social world as they perceive it.

[Mossling]

There's no reason why people shouldn't be able to freely participate in religion without doing so compulsively out of fear for social consequences.

Unfortunately it seems that such processes are built in to some religions - in the books and the deepest cultural history surrounding those books.

People generally maintain a submissive or subservient attitude toward others and by doing so, those others are enabled to get their way on most things pretty easily. It's like if everyone drives defensively, it is not hard to change lanes. If everyone drove democratically, changing lanes would be very hard because your power to change lanes would be checked and balanced by everyone "voting" to keep the lane for themselves.

I think this is a very interesting observation - the main 'lanes' - the big political parties which allow for one to feel like one is making changes - dominate/dictate to one's personal voice and opinion to an extent. I wonder how much, in a practical sense, though? - i.e. how much does it affect the 'free' democratic process in general?

Still, they don't manage to dominate each other as long as they sufficiently resist, check, and balance each other's power in various ways.

Indeed, and yet it is down to the individual parties to manage their own internal democratic process, right? It seems dictators can emerge within these contexts also. We saw leanings towards this kind of thing in the last UK government:

"Gordon Brown was a key member of Tony Blair's ''inner circle'' involved in decision-making on Iraq" Iraq inquiry: Gordon Brown was involved in decision-making says Alastair Campbell

....and of course these politicians taking the whole nation to War in Iraq, and the subsequent retaliation from Muslim extremists - bombing the London underground - was all the result of an apparently very un-democratic affair. The 45 minute WMD claim was apparently dictated to the majority in a way any of the most evil dictators would have done to a nation under a dictatorship. Even with this feature, the UK would apparently never be held up as an undemocratic nation. Quite the opposite; it is often held up as a good example of a democratic country.

This is why checks and balances of decentralized power is a better model of democracy than domination by a majority.

Maybe - but who is to do the balancing and checking? They would apparently have a lot of power...

Ultimately, I think democracy and freedom are defined by faith in voluntary cooperation as opposed to rule by decree in any form.

..so again we are hitting the 'faith' issue - can some people be born with demons inside them; thus being hell-bent on not cooperating; voluntarily or otherwise, and wish only to decree? Are some people 'reborn' with bad karma carried over from previous lives, which means they will cause trouble no matter what they do to stop it? Are some people randomly chosen by God to be his 'medium' on Earth, and channel his messages for the good of mankind? Etc., etc.

It looks like it's going to take some time until:
1) Information technology has become so abundant and cheap that developing countries with medieval faiths can have access to scientific training and education (India with their $35 touchpad computers seem to be on the right track), and...
2) Those developing countries with science and information at their fingertips begin to outmode the irrational ideas they base their cultural practices upon.

I believe only then will true Democracy have a chance to survive, and who knows, by then maybe Democracy won't be needed so much - maybe by then we will scientifically understand what a human's natural biological communal/social behaviour is.

. Mob rule is not democracy, nor does violent overthrow imply that a democratic government will arise out of what remains.

I understand where you are coming from here, however as noted before there is apparently no one clear definition of what Democracy is. I was looking at the operation of majority opinion in society - obviously never acceptable to an opposed minority whether in a relatively peaceful election, or a violent uprising. It seems that if a majority mob take over government - a mob who has elected their own dictator, for example - then this has the hallmarks of a democratic process. Is Democracy defined by it's lack of violence? If so, to what extent is any form of aggressive stance or action from parties deemed acceptable in order for it to be part of a Democratic process?

A majority violently taking government - a majority that could have actually peacefully voted without all the bloodshed - is putting in place 'majority opinion' on how the nation should be governed.

And there's a big distinction between "power" and "governing power" that I think you're failing to address.

Would you be able to expand on this? Powerful people are apparently so termed because they have 'the power' to get things done.

possible for people to overthrow a dictator, but that does not imply governing power is in the hands of the people. To the contrary, it implies a lack of power I'd associate with an unstable society.

Unstable in what way? My example was of a majority overthrowing a dictator. Maybe after this the majority can put a democratic process in place..?

-------------------------

This question of mine still stands, which I would be interested in discussing:
"maybe we can look at Iraq; after foreign forces leave, will it just descend in to something worse than when Saddam was there, because really it wasn't Saddam, but just cultural, economic, geophysical, religious, etc., undertones combining to create such a situation?"
[note to Mods - I am happy to open up this question in a new thread if you think it requires such a thing]

Thanks for the engaged discussion - it is very thought-provoking.

[reconsiderate]

Unfortunately it seems that such processes are built in to some religions - in the books and the deepest cultural history surrounding those books.

Well, I'd like to analyze this at the level of specifics, because while I think that you're right that many people in every religion have been motivated by fear in some way or another, some have also become liberated from fear by religion. Likewise, some secular/atheistic people are driven by fear of religion while others explore it as just another form of culture, like food.

I think this is a very interesting observation - the main 'lanes' - the big political parties which allow for one to feel like one is making changes - dominate/dictate to one's personal voice and opinion to an extent. I wonder how much, in a practical sense, though? - i.e. how much does it affect the 'free' democratic process in general?

Yes, this is a fascinating question/issue, imo. It's not that party-formation automatically takes away from the ability of individuals to engage freely in civil democratic discourse; because party-ideologies and discourses also can help facilitate that. However, there is a culture that can form among individuals where they treat party ideology as something to dictate and conform to rather than discuss and negotiate. So when individuals treat interact with each other with the mentality that you either go along with the doctrine or find another party, it works to limit civil democracy among party-participants.

Indeed, and yet it is down to the individual parties to manage their own internal democratic process, right? It seems dictators can emerge within these contexts also. We saw leanings towards this kind of thing in the last UK government:

the whole idea of "managing" an "internal democratic process" sounds pretty anti-democratic to me. It sounds like the emphasis is more on control and delineation of a protected "interior" than on facilitating critical-open discourse regarding various issues. Still, one could say that the function of the party is to cultivate a certain flavor of propaganda to be used democratically in civil democratic discourse generally. In that sense, adherence to party ideology would not be the goal but rather generating food for public thought and discussion.

....and of course these politicians taking the whole nation to War in Iraq, and the subsequent retaliation from Muslim extremists - bombing the London underground - was all the result of an apparently very un-democratic affair.

I don't see how a "whole nation" can be taken to war. It also seems very anti-democratic to frame the subway bombing as being caused by the war. Retaliation is caused by the freewill of the agents of retaliation, right? You wouldn't say that someone who punched you from spitting on them was caused to do so by your spitting, would you? Both acts of spitting and punching would be interpreted from a democratic perspective as freely chosen acts of expressing aggression in a fight. I.e. a democratic perspective doesn't frame events/actions in terms of command-control logic.

The 45 minute WMD claim was apparently dictated to the majority in a way any of the most evil dictators would have done to a nation under a dictatorship. Even with this feature, the UK would apparently never be held up as an undemocratic nation. Quite the opposite; it is often held up as a good example of a democratic country.

Calling someone or something either democratic or not is like saying that an individual is ultimately either good or bad. In reality/practice, democracy and anti-democracy are always co-present and conflict in various dynamics of power-resistance. If you achieve the ideology that a nation is a unified social unit and it is uniformly democratic as such, you've actually achieved a very anti-democratic fascist (i.e. national-socialist) framework. If, on the other hand, you don't treat "nation" as referring to a social unit at all but simply to institutions or land, and you use the institutions to promote democratic relations among the people touched by those institutions, then I would call this a more democratic approach to nationalism (i.e. national institutions).

Maybe - but who is to do the balancing and checking? They would apparently have a lot of power...

That's inherent in the idea of a republic, i.e. that power is decentralized among the people. I don't know how it is possible to have democracy in ideologies where power is considered centralized in a monarchy. I know that constitutional monarchies are generally treated as a form of democracy, but is there any sense among individuals that they have power to dispute institutional authority? Or is submission to authority considered foundational and people refuse to question it or regard dissent as a positive facet of democracy?

..so again we are hitting the 'faith' issue - can some people be born with demons inside them; thus being hell-bent on not cooperating; voluntarily or otherwise, and wish only to decree? Are some people 'reborn' with bad karma carried over from previous lives, which means they will cause trouble no matter what they do to stop it? Are some people randomly chosen by God to be his 'medium' on Earth, and channel his messages for the good of mankind? Etc., etc.

I guess people have to decide these things through their own processes of spiritual discovery/construction. But personally I don't think demons are in-born; demon is a metaphorical term for describing a non-human agent of evil as opposed to an angel who is an agent of good/God. So theoretically/mythologically angels and demons interact with people without per-se occupying them; although demonic possession does make explanatory sense in terms of the compulsive component of sin. I also don't think that being 'reborn' with particular karmas means that people are forced to commit actions that have been done to them. E.g. I don't think a soldier who was killed is karmically forced to be reborn to kill her killer in the next life. I think the karma is what "attracts" or otherwise sets the stage for the action to be returned. Then people have the freewill to resist the temptation to act on their karma, thus breaking the cycle somewhat perhaps. I think if God chooses prophets, it is simply a product of who connects with whom in a spiritually positive way at any moment. I have gained spiritual enlightenment from numerous conversations through the years and I could call all of these people prophets or angels. That doesn't me they didn't rob a liquor store the day after enlightening me.

Finally, regarding you contrasting being cooperative to being hell-bent on decree, I think again you're taking your framing for granted. You are assuming that a response to decree is not a cooperative act or that one has to package one's will as decree in order to have an attitude of decree. Some people are very polite, but they do not expect or accept people questioning the content of what they say. In other words, these people see human interaction as decree, period. They view cultural norms and values as absolute truths and they experience their actions as necessary and obligatory according to cultural imperatives. This is quite different from someone who preaches their will or otherwise asserts themselves in a fashion you would associate with "decree" but who is actually quite cognizant of the fact that all individuals are completely free to comply with, resist, or ignore altogether their decrees. This is a striking contrast with the "cooperative" person who view cooperation as imperative and is intolerant of breaches of social norms and expectations they take for granted.

It looks like it's going to take some time until:
1) Information technology has become so abundant and cheap that developing countries with medieval faiths can have access to scientific training and education (India with their $35 touchpad computers seem to be on the right track), and...
2) Those developing countries with science and information at their fingertips begin to outmode the irrational ideas they base their cultural practices upon.

The cynical irony is that I know very few westerners with access to information technology who are immune from dogmatism in whatever knowledge they consider valid. I know people who regard evolutionism and global warming as dogmatically and ritualistically as any religious fundamentalist regards their ideologies. IT does provide a means of interaction to engage differing ideologies and viewpoints, but it really ends up being individuals themselves who decide whether to critically reason about different ideas or just ritualistically eschew everything that threatens the dogma they cling to; which everyone does to varying extents I think.

I believe only then will true Democracy have a chance to survive, and who knows, by then maybe Democracy won't be needed so much - maybe by then we will scientifically understand what a human's natural biological communal/social behaviour is.

I think we have already known for a long time that democracy IS human natural biological communal/social behavior. Do you know the episode of the old Star Trek series called, "Return of the Archeons?" It is a cute 1960s version of what human community is like when authoritarian conformity is instituted in the most absolute possible way for the good of the people/community. The people become totally repressed and terrorized and the computer that runs their lives ends up self-destructing because it can't process the fact that it is not in the best interest of the good of the people to control them in the interest of their own good.

A majority violently taking government - a majority that could have actually peacefully voted without all the bloodshed - is putting in place 'majority opinion' on how the nation should be governed.

But why should anyone control others absolutely in the name of a majority, "peacefully" or otherwise? Why should democracy involve respect for and consideration of minority views?

And there's a big distinction between "power" and "governing power" that I think you're failing to address.

Would you be able to expand on this? Powerful people are apparently so termed because they have 'the power' to get things done.

As opposed to what? Not having the power to get things done? How could anyone not have the power to get anything done unless they were denied access to the tools or other assistance that facilitates it? Power to get things done is resisted by the power to limit people's access to tools and assistance.

Unstable in what way? My example was of a majority overthrowing a dictator. Maybe after this the majority can put a democratic process in place..?

If you have the power to overthrow a dictator, why wouldn't you have the power to incite their followers to act democratically instead of in obedience toward the will of the dictator? Foucault once said something like you can cut the head off the king, but that doesn't behead the culture of sovereignty among the subjects. I'm sure I'm butchering that quote but the point is that authoritarianism has its roots in the subjects, not the monarch themselves.

This question of mine still stands, which I would be interested in discussing:
"maybe we can look at Iraq; after foreign forces leave, will it just descend in to something worse than when Saddam was there, because really it wasn't Saddam, but just cultural, economic, geophysical, religious, etc., undertones combining to create such a situation?"
[note to Mods - I am happy to open up this question in a new thread if you think it requires such a thing]

My discursive knowledge of the Iraq situation is really so limited. It would probably help if some inspectors would go there to provide me with an objective picture of the situation (that's a joke, btw. hope you get it). I think hanging S Hussein was a mistake - another case of followers blaming a figurehead for their own authoritarian submission. On the other hand, I think somehow many people have let go of their repression and that is causing the current civil unrest, which will either escalate to new levels of authoritarian control OR people will develop perspective and wisdom to interact in a more peaceful democratic way instead of repressing their extreme violence as before. Would you advocate support of some form of undemocratic authoritarianism to prevent democracy from developing altogether in the interest of civil peace?

[Paul Anthony]

Many years ago, Ira Levin wrote a political science-fiction novel entitled This Perfect Day*, about a world government that appeared to be democratic because there was no person serving in the capacity of "ruler". All decisions were allegedly made by a super computer. Everyone was convinced of the infallibility of the computer, and trusted that it could not make a decision that was not in the best interests of the people. As the novel unfolds, we discover the computer is a facade, and that governance comes from a group of people selected by a dictator. His intentions are benevolent, but it is a dictatorship nevertheless. Our hero discovers the ploy and destroys the computer and the headquarters of the leadership, thereby "freeing" the people.

I've always thought there should have been more to the story: How would people who had made no decisions for themselves - for generations - manage to establish a functional government and keep the lights on and the water flowing? IMO, they would most likely find themselves another dictator, just as has happened in the former USSR. Once people become dependent upon government it is difficult to find the means to self-govern.

* The book was not his most successful work, and has been out of print for more than twenty years. There are used copies available if you are interested. It is a well written story along the lines of 1984 and well worth the read.

[reconsiderate]

The interesting part, imo, is not so much what happens once benevolent authoritarian dictatorship has been established, it is the process of how a culture of obedience spreads in the first place. Once people have intimidated each other and themselves to the point of fearing their own individual power, leadership, initiative, responsibility, etc. it can be a dictator, a computer, a volcano, or astrological predictions that becomes the object of their submission. The important thing for them is to be able to avoid sticking their neck out to take initiative in decision-making. This is why most jobs require a manager, I think. I.e. the workers would not dare to do anything without a policy or initiative coming from some perceived executive chain of command.

[kidjan]

Split posts on Margaret Thatcher; let's stay on topic in this thread, please.