Is Democracy Good?

[C_Hill]

There is a very real question as to whether democracy is in fact the silver bullet for all of the world's ills.

Any thoughts on this?
_________________
Dr Christopher Hill Executive Director The Agora Group christopher.hill@agora-group.org

[enyanr]

I wouldn’t call it all the worlds’ ills…but I am of the opinion that democracy today is being deteriorated especially in context of the present US government. Yes I am talking bout the situation in Iraq and how deeply flawed it is that US government can carry out wars, all in the name of “freedom… democracy” and “purging terrorism” when really… it’s a hidden agenda *(the list ranges from economic greed, oil, daddy’s war and so on) WAS it a democratic decision to go to war, when more than half the American citizen and British citizens were protesting against it?

Democracy is essential in protecting basic human rights values that totalitarian regimes fail to recognize. But even then … sometimes democracy is not what it should be … take India for example (which I quote “was the first independent non western country in the world to embrace a resolutely democratic constitution.”) …where its democratic regime is ridden with corruption, where our president possesses no real power, where women are still largely looked upon as second class citizens, where caste for many people determines their education…India has come a long way but it still has a long way to go… in terms of equality to say the least.

For each country (I believe), its culture, mentality, social situation and level of education play a vital role in determining if democracy is the silver bullet for all its ills …or not. Is Iraq ready for the gift of democracy that America so kindly bestowed them? …well … it’s got it now, whether they like it or not…

*The liability of the hidden agendas is also questionable since there are many conspiracies and theory behind the real reason of the war.

[enyanr]

I just read that the United States of America is “NOT a democracy. It’s a republic… “
Im a bit confused… can anyone elaborate?

[steve]

Democracy isn’t the best way to govern in all countries. Having spoken to a few friends of mine about this issue and concerning Belarus, it was pointed out to me, very quickly that:

Lukashenka is very strong leader and usually wins fight with Putin.

Lukashenka keeps very successful economical model: he kills Russian agriculture by supplying high quality products for good prices, re-sells Russian oil and gas, wins contracts in machine-building, etc.

Lukashenka introduced strategic partnership with China in heavy industry, education, etc.

Lukashenka introduced new transport policy and is approaching a new agreement with Lithuania and Russia on goods transit, which will give great preferences to Belarus economy.

Lukashanka knows that the very big game is approaching in Russia in season 2007-2008 and he could join the possible winner and get many benefits out of it...

This has got me thinking; I mean, I realise that the situation in Belarus is not ideal, especially when it comes to civil liberties, but would democracy be good for Belarus right now? I think not. The open market is a very hostile place and I cannot muster a single ‘skill’ or product that Belarus can offer the wider world other than cheap labour (along with dozen other Eastern European states!) that would see Belarus succeed.

I recently visited Georgia and I was talking to my host and she admitted that it was better ‘back in the good old days’ under Russian rule. I was quite puzzled at this, because I genuinely believed that democracy is the best we’ve got right now, for was it not Churchill who once said,

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

My host went on to explain that in the old days people had enough food, cars and houses etc. Today she claimed there was more unemployed people and homeless people. She admitted that they may have been a laughing stock to the west, or that the West would have pity on them, but now they are a democracy, she said, where’s the pity now?

I found it quite difficult to get round the fact that, for someone who owns a B&B and makes a lot of money from so called ‘rich westerners’ she could complain about her situation! I asked her to look towards the examples of Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for inspiration, but she simply couldn’t relate to these places.

This has got me thinking now about other non democratic states and whether they could ‘survive’ in a democracy/open market situation. The clearest example there is is of course China. However, even if you look at the likes of Cuba and N. Korea I cannot see how moving to a democracy can help these people. Yes I presume that there would be a lot of (American) money going into these places to attract global investment, to ‘create’ a democracy but for how long can you keep throwing good money away?

To explain this a little better, take reference to the Shaw-shank redemption movie, when Brookes leaves the prison; does the same principal apply? If you ‘install’ democracy within a state that has no prior knowledge of democracy, with people who don’t understand the meaning of the word or know what it entails – just simply the notion, ‘oh the USA, UK and Western Europe are democracies, they are successful, therefore we should be democratic too’ doesn’t add up. What you have is a situation of scared rabbits in the middle of the road – people thinking, what do I do now? This even occurs within democracies! My housemate is from Cyprus and she *hates* the western way of life, to her it’s full of drugs and sex which is the common student lifestyle. So whenever she’s ‘exposed’ to such things (even in movies) she’ll escape.

This ‘escape’ for some people is a retreat back to the ‘good old days.’ Is this not the situation the world finds itself in today with Iraq and Afghanistan? The militants in Iraq for example, fighting to keep the ‘good old days’ because even under Saddam rule, there were less deaths than when the US and UK went in.

Is democracy the silver bullet for all the worlds ills? No, it cannot be in the same sense that there cannot be one right religion. People are allowed to be governed by however they like – I cannot recall the majority of people in Iraq calling for regime change before the invasion. I cannot recall the majority of people in Belarus or North Korea or even Cuba wanting to change. Of course there’s always people who want change, who doesn’t? However, in the same way as religion, people should be tolerant and respectful of the way other people lead their lives, for not to do so causes world wars…

[steve]

Republic =

–noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Thus, the USA is a democratic republic state - I think?!

[luker]

I"d reply in full, but it won't let me write more than this!

Steve, I think you might be conflating Democracy with neo-liberal economics.

The two are not synonymous-despite the rhetoric we all hear.

[luker]

Pre-1980, democracies in the west took much stronger roles in evening out disparities of the market. Think Keynes, think New Deal, Think (old) Labour party here in the UK

That under the current world order, democracy is touted as the rise of the market, globalization etc. etc. might actually have to do more with the polemic above yours(!) than traits inherent to Democracy.

Personally, I want to move to Sweden, and have moppy haired children running around a nicely balanced social democracy. Meanwhile I drink overpriced beer whilst enjoying (farm?) subsidies from the government and argue about some community zoning decision. But I digress.

In my view, part of the problem occurs when the citizen is made into the consumer. Democracy is about choice right? Choice in a market? Choice not to pay taxes? Choice not to integrate socially into a community?

I think ‘democracy’ should be more about inclusion and consensus than electoral races and choices. Belarus won’t be ruled by the people under a neo-liberal regime. Nor will it be ruled by the people if it’s a pawn of Russia. Of course , politicians face trade offs, and if as the leader of Belarus, you tell Russia to stick it!, improve civil liberties etc. etc., you ALSO have to keep the cash flow coming from somewhere. Right now that somewhere, is the global market, and every, rational, harsh externality that comes with it.

Churchill was right, but he was speaking of the political process, not commenting on an economic one (IMHO).