Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Do We Live in a Democracy?

Scroll to see replies

Doesn't that just mean the population is oppressive and authoritarian or at least collaborative?

What do you mean by that? The population is oppressed, not oppressive, and they have no power so they cannot be authoritarian.

They are certainly able to oppress and authoritarian-ise each other, as it's easier to **** on those more vulnerable than you, like the disabled or the unemployed, than to attack those who are truly doing you damage.

(The overriding trend among the populace has been the rise of individualism, which in the working classes means causing trouble and attacking others verbally, and in the middle classes means obsessing about where your taxes are going and narcissism over your house, lifestyle and family.)

Reply 61

WilliamODPannell

Original post by scrotgrot

You can't possibly believe that twaddle - our views are never represented, the views represented are those of powerful lobbying networks, which seek to exploit the resources of this country for quick profit, including human resources.

Nothing is sacred or incorruptible about a democracy. Our democracy is authoritarian and oppressive. There's nothing to be proud of about a democracy like that.

You can't really say that our views are never represented. The public votes for the MP they think will best represent their views. To help them decide who to vote for the parties release manifestos. A guardian article describes the ministers involved in Justice and Immigration as "among the worst offenders in Whitehall with progress falling short on 14 out of 50 promises." That's over 70%.
Lobbying networks work on behalf of almost every interest. It's a key principle in Pluralist democracy, lobbying is meant to allow for interests to be greater represented in Parliament. Sure big business has more economic leverage over the government, but that would be true no matter what the political system.
Also, I'm curious as to how you'd argue our democracy to be authoritarian and oppresive

Reply 62

scrotgrot

Original post by WilliamODPannell

You can't really say that our views are never represented. The public votes for the MP they think will best represent their views.

To help them decide who to vote for the parties release manifestos. A guardian article describes the ministers involved in Justice and Immigration as "among the worst offenders in Whitehall with progress falling short on 14 out of 50 promises." That's over 70%.

Manifesto promises are vague and non-contractual. Statistics are massaged to the hilt. Also there is little difference between the parties, see above.

Lobbying networks work on behalf of almost every interest. It's a key principle in Pluralist democracy, lobbying is meant to allow for interests to be greater represented in Parliament. Sure big business has more economic leverage over the government, but that would be true no matter what the political system.

True, and I suppose my own failing is that I believe a utopia is possible. It may be possible that our democracy is the best of a bad job for keeping big business at bay. However, on the whole I would argue that if that's true no matter what the political system, we need to keep wrong-footing them by changing the political system as often as possible. That's one of the ideas behind general elections and party politics I suppose, but soon even they become predictable and exploitable. I argue that's what's happening in our present era of neo-liberal consensus.

It has got to the point, in my view, where that pluralism is actually de facto more like oligarchy or monopolism, because that caveat which you admit, that big business has a bigger bite of the cherry, has simply grown too large. So our differences are in some ways a matter of degree, not of kind.

Also, I'm curious as to how you'd argue our democracy to be authoritarian and oppresive

Since 2001 (well, before as well) the legislative groundwork has been laid (example link, admit that it is biased) to suppress protest and dismantle the systems of state support. There are vanishingly few left-wing voices in the media or in opposition, and those that exist have little currency, see game theory again.

While they're far from alone, the current government has made a particularly naked assault on workers' rights, social security, blah blah, you cannot have missed the headlines. You must at least have read about the extent of surveillance.

Reply 63

WilliamODPannell

Original post by scrotgrot

Out of a shortlist selected and bankrolled by the party, or their "donors" (bribes). Even worse when the parties both put forward the same consensus, as we've had since 1995.

A separate but related issue is the voting system. You may well live in a safe seat, or failing that in a seat where only two parties have a chance, blah blah. It's game theory - if you love the Lib Dems but it's traditionally Labour/Tory, you might vote Labour, in the expectation that all the other Lib Dems will have had the same idea. Read up on game theory.

Manifesto promises are vague and non-contractual. Statistics are massaged to the hilt. Also there is little difference between the parties, see above.

True, and I suppose my own failing is that I believe a utopia is possible. It may be possible that our democracy is the best of a bad job for keeping big business at bay. However, on the whole I would argue that if that's true no matter what the political system, we need to keep wrong-footing them by changing the political system as often as possible. That's one of the ideas behind general elections and party politics I suppose, but soon even they become predictable and exploitable. I argue that's what's happening in our present era of neo-liberal consensus.

It has got to the point, in my view, where that pluralism is actually de facto more like oligarchy or monopolism, because that caveat which you admit, that big business has a bigger bite of the cherry, has simply grown too large. So our differences are in some ways a matter of degree, not of kind.

Also, I'm curious as to how you'd argue our democracy to be authoritarian and oppresive

Since 2001 (well, before as well) the legislative groundwork has been laid (example link, admit that it is biased) to suppress protest and dismantle the systems of state support. There are vanishingly few left-wing voices in the media or in opposition, and those that exist have little currency, see game theory again.

While they're far from alone, the current government has made a particularly naked assault on workers' rights, social security, blah blah, you cannot have missed the headlines. You must at least have read about the extent of surveillance.

The shortlist is not entirely made up of candidates bankrolled by parties and their donors. There are a few independent candidates, and some smaller and national parties win seats too. I'll admit that the voting system is an inherent weakness in the current system, and living in a safe seat may well mean that people have to vote tactically. As I've said before I think a PR based system, with a none of the above option, would be far superior to the current one.

It is true that some manifesto promises are vague, "making welfare fairer" and "standing up for Britain in Europe" are good examples. And yes, they obviously aren't binding, but there are calls for them to become binding, although it may be for the best that they aren't binding, given that 50-60+% of the electorate don't vote for the "winning manifesto".

I don't think that changing the political system regularly is advisable. Switching from a representative democracy to an autocracy to a monarchy and so on wouldn't be beneficial, just overly complicated. I'd argue that Pluralism is still relevant, it's simply evolved and neo-pluralism is the most acurate school of though.

Yes I can't deny that there are more state intrusions into our civil liberties, I used to love the "to what extent have civil liberties been eroded in recent years" essays at A level. They obviously have, but the argument is that it's for our protection. The digital snooping is a thing, I'll give you that. But it's not as if everyone will be able to find out your secrets. Until there's hard evidence against you you'll be a number on a screen with times, dates and recipients of texts. phone calls and emails. The right to protest is being eroded, I'll give you that one, but if you do everything by the book you can still have a relevant protest. And finding out a persons web history is still difficult, I'm think that everything after the ? in a URL is private. Although there is the obvious "who watches the watchmen?" issue

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 64

Morgsie

In theory yes but practically no

Reply 65

Melancholy

Original post by MatureStudent36

You read the Guardian don't you?

I read a variety of newspapers, but my main source is BBC News online.

Original post by Observatory

I for one welcome our future ubermensch overlords of people who have high post counts on TSR.

Meh. I like the analogy. It's strange that my position gets tied up with Nietsche. Funnily enough, J S Mill provides a similar view to the one I've outlined - which was one of the reasons that he favoured free education, so that competent and intelligent people could make judgements on current affairs. People with experience, wisdom and reading, exposed to arguments and a variety of discourses are probably better judges. The positive connotations that we associate with democracy is a relatively new development (usually it was "Liberty" that was the trump word in English political discourse; "Democracy" was more French). In Chinese political discourse, meritocracy is preferred, and democracy isn't given much moral force.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a democrat, I like devolution, I like local people having a say on certain things in their community; but I'd sooner have a constitution than allow an unrestrained democracy. Democracy is a practical political compromise for ensuring stability, reducing corruption, receiving public feedback, and such like, but I don't see any moral imperative to keep democracy as a procedure, per se. Its value is not derived from itself. Liberty, equality, welfare, and such like, are all values. I don't put democracy, and the right for everybody to decide what rules to follow, up there.

Original post by Extremotroph

Lol so I suppose what you're saying here, and I can't really disagree given the situations I've observed in my life, is that there exists Leaders (or rulers) and Followers, and the followers are too thick (I say, brainwashed) to allow them any sort of power, for if they were given it, they'd screw it up. Sounds about right.

I think that the lack of intelligence and critical thought among the followers is partly a result of the actions of our leaders.

Not really. I consider the leader of the EDL to be a leader, but I don't think he has a right to enforce his manifesto, even if the majority of people vote for him. The common objections include clichés like "tyranny of the majority", which I think are sufficiently strong to defeat many people's commitment to democracy as an end in itself.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 66

Extremotroph

Original post by WilliamODPannell

Just because you dislike politicians it doesn't make the system undemocratic, in the same way that a dictatorship led by a fantastic leader is still a dictatorship.

Yes but there's nothing inherently, objectively wrong with either system. They are tools to help us along the way, however I believe they have also been hindrances to the development of humankind.

So, if we've recognised that my disliking of democracy in its current state is subjective, we can also recognise that one's liking is the same.

Yes MPs are elected with less that 50% of the vote, but they still have to get a relative majority. I'd agree that this could definitely be improved upon with a PR based voting system. But FPTP isn't undemocratic. Yes, there are differences in Constituency size, but that's unavoidable in single member constituency politics. There outer Hebrides island constituency in Scotland with and electorate of 20 or so thousand. It doesn't make sense to group that with another part of the country so that there is a more even number of constituents. If that happened the interests of the isolated islanders would clash with those of the mainlanders. It also wouldn't make sense to have an MP having to travel four or five hours minimum between the Islands and the mainland to see all of their constituents. One man gets one vote, that's what a democratic system entails... Sure there might be differences in the constituency sizes, but it's a huge step up from North Korea, or places where they practice carousel voting. Even in the UK it used to be possible for one person to have three votes in a General Election...
I'm not sure why you're saying one vote is barely a blip in the electorate, every vote is, so that's equal... Every blip adds up to make the whole electorate. I'm not sure why that's undemocratic? Are you suggesting a massive increase in the amount of representatives?

You say FPTP isn't "undemocratic" but you have not stated what you mean by this word.

I appreciate your point about constituency sizing but that does not eliminate the fact that one vote is worth more in certain places than it is in others. I believe this to be undemocratic.

Oh yes, certainly a huge step up from North Korea. I am grateful for my environment in the UK. However, in the West, we have a tiny minority of greedy capitalists holding virtually all of the wealth, to such an extent whereby they are preventing massive development, more importantly, increasing pain and suffering - not that I am suffering hard at all.

We have concluded, the votes are not equal in measure in differing constituencies. I'm not really suggesting anything other than we don't live in a democracy.

I'm not saying that everything gets done, sometimes circumstances change. But I'd like to know how many manifesto promises not only get ignored, but see the opposite thing happen. Boris Johnson claims to have followed up on 90% of his election promises, although to be fair Ken Livingstone disputes that, saying it's nearer 60-70%. Either way that's still a majority of promises.

Sigh, statistics. For example, (not based in reality), Bojo pledges to increase the amount of public toilets, and does so, that's a point towards fulfilling the manifesto. However, Bojo has also pledged to cut taxes for small businesses, but failed to do so, and that's a point towards not fulfilling the manifesto. I am sure that you recognise the difference in the value of these political goods, and that statistics are easily maniuplated in order to paint a certain image.

Furthermore the manifestos are often quite vague.

Reply 67

Extremotroph

Original post by Observatory

In which case my definition is satisfied

Those elections were rigged and coercion was employed on the real voters. The things you're complaining about here (my personal vote won't decide the outcome, plurality rather than majority can be enough to form a government, etc.) are inherent to the system.

If you think Britain's elections are rigged or coerced somehow, then consider this. Can you name a single policy that is opposed by both parties and yet would enjoy wide public support?

I actually can name one - I don't think I can name two - but you probably wouldn't like it!

You are welcome to elaborate on your definition of democracy. So far it seems to me like you're a bit confused.

That these traits of an electoral system are inherent to UK politics, does not mean that they are democratic. If you are unwilling to reply back to the points with a reason why you find that it is democratic that Blair got in with the equivalent of less than a quarter of the vote from the entire electorate - 2001 election.

I don't understand how you believe I insinuate that UK elections are rigged. The point about the Iraq elections was to do with satisfying your definition, "A state in which sovereignty is vested in an elected body". I fail to see how this definition is not in line the Iraqi regime, when it is so vague.

Lastly, ok let's play your game. Legalise Cannabis. Bring the troops back from Afghanistan tomorrow. Greatly decrease non-EU immigration. Lower petrol duty by 50%. Own the banks and nationalise the profits. :wink:

All these words are not endorsed by labcon.

Reply 68

Libtardian

Original post by scrotgrot

The government is representative is it not?

The populace has an oppressive mindset, they vote for oppressors, they get oppressed...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 69

scrotgrot

Original post by otester

The government is representative is it not?

Hardly.

The populace has an oppressive mindset, they vote for oppressors, they get oppressed...

Posted from TSR Mobile

They have very little choice.

Reply 70

Morgsie

Following on from my earlier it is not a Democracy that Governments are elected on 36% of the vote

Reply 71

Libtardian

Original post by scrotgrot

Hardly.

They have very little choice.

Going by the last election over 90% of the populace voted for or didn't vote against the status quo.

The population has the ability to create new parties if there is no one of their choosing.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 72

Observatory

Original post by Extremotroph

That these traits of an electoral system are inherent to UK politics, does not mean that they are democratic.
They're inherent to an electoral system.

Of course your vote doesn't decide anything on its own; the whole point is that you have 1/60,000,000th of a say, which is hardly anything. If your vote individually carried great weight it would be an oligarchy or dictatorship!

As for FPTP and the constituency system, the UK is in effect a confederation of constituencies not a single nationalist bloc. The point is to ensure that governments have widespread support throughout the country, rather than being representatives of a concentrated group of special interests. This may or may not be the preferred way to organise our political system but it is not an undemocratic one.

The fact that some people choose not to vote (which is how you arrive at such low support figures for the recent governments) similarly does not mean that our governments aren't elected.

---

Lastly, ok let's play your game. Legalise Cannabis.

Widely opposed by everyone outside the student demographic.

Bring the troops back from Afghanistan tomorrow.

I'd half grant this - but people would greatly dislike the resulting fall-out with the US, and the two can't be separated.

Greatly decrease non-EU immigration.

Both parties support this.

Lower petrol duty by 50%.

Immediately increasing the deficit by a quarter.

Own the banks and nationalise the profits. :wink:

That's an extremist policy supported by almost no one.

Here is the example I had in mind: reinstitute the death penalty. While support has steadily dropped, the death penalty has enjoyed an actual majority of support ever since it was abolished. It has no plainly unpopular secondary effects. It is a win-win policy. The only reason we don't have it is that it is disproportionately personally unpopular among the sort of people who become MPs - but I suspect you're happy with that.

Reply 73

Birkenhead

Original post by Observatory

Here is the example I had in mind: reinstitute the death penalty. While support has steadily dropped, the death penalty has enjoyed an actual majority of support ever since it was abolished. It has no plainly unpopular secondary effects. It is a win-win policy. The only reason we don't have it is that it is disproportionately personally unpopular among the sort of people who become MPs - but I suspect you're happy with that.

After reading your astute analysis of other suggestions I am astounded you finish by expressing support for such a stupid policy. Not only is the idea of the state having the power to take the lives of its citizens repellent, there is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent against crime. According to the UN Development program, 'The five countries in the world with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty have nearly half the number of murders per 100,000 people than the five countries with the highest homicide rates which do impose the death penalty'. There are also countless cases of executions which have later found to be of innocents, which would have been rectifiable had they instead been sentenced to imprisonment. Far from win-win; lose-lose-lose might be more accurate.

Reply 74

Observatory

Original post by Birkenhead

After reading your astute analysis of other suggestions I am astounded you finish by expressing support for such a stupid policy.

I'm not saying I support this proposal personally, rather that it's the only example I can come up with of Parliament resolutely ignoring public opinion on an issue for a long time for its own ideological (rather than practical) reasons.

I might grant that reinstituting it today would force us out of some treaties. But since we technically retained the death penalty until 1997 (for treason in time of war) apparently without issue, it seems there would have been little practical problem reinstituting it for at least 3 decades after its abolition during which it commanded overwhelming support.

Reply 75

Birkenhead

Original post by Observatory

But the Parliamentarians opposing the death penalty have power to do so precisely via the same people who you say are overwhelmingly in favour of it, implying that most of them don't care enough about this issue to replace current MPs with supporters.

Are you then saying that you believe public opinion to be bowed to on principle? I'm with Burke on this. Representatives are there to act on their own intellects and consciences, not merely as whores to the popular mind, which isn't virtuous merely by being bigger than individuals. What about mid-20th Century USA? Popular opinion then was that blacks were inherently inferior to whites and should be treated as such. Sanity is not statistical...

Reply 76

Observatory

Original post by Birkenhead

Oh certainly; it only happens because it is a fairly minor issue to most people and politicians are oddly united on it. We also have a tradition of holding free votes on the death penalty, abortion, etc. so that they are not party political issues at all. It's a corner case. My argument has been that, on the whole, the British political system does produce policies that are in line with commonly held opinion. Cases where it seems not to are overwhelmingly likely to be ones where there is some practical problem with doing what people want that they aren't aware of - like cutting taxes and raising spending simultaneously.

I only bring it up because I find that the "Britain isn't a democracy!!" crowd hate the death penalty, so it's amusing to see their reaction to the one solid example of things not working as they "should".

Are you then saying that you believe public opinion to be bowed to on principle? I'm with Burke on this. Representatives are there to act on their own intellects and consciences, not merely as whores to the popular mind, which isn't virtuous merely by being bigger than individuals. What about mid-20th Century USA? Popular opinion then was that blacks were inherently inferior to whites and should be treated as such. Sanity is not statistical...

Speaking for myself I'm not really a democrat. I'd rather have the English Common Law relatively free of statutes. But I think democracy is the next least worst system.

Jim Crow US is actually an interesting example. Racial policies were only supported in some states, and not the most wealthy or populous ones. If the US had been a unitary country like Britain there would likely not have been Jim Crow. On the other hand, if the US had been a unitary state in 1776 then slavery would have been imposed everywhere in the country. Perhaps abolition would not have occurred? Or perhaps, as a compromise, some proto-Jim Crow would have been imposed everywhere, and become entrenched?

Federalism means that some states can impose unjust laws; on the other hand, it makes it more likely that at least somewhere opposes those laws, and you can move to that place, as millions of US blacks did. So I am not sold on pre-Civil Rights US as an argument against either democracy or federalism.

Reply 77

scrotgrot

Original post by otester

Going by the last election over 90% of the populace voted for or didn't vote against the status quo.

Why is that relevant in any way?

The population has the ability to create new parties if there is no one of their choosing.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, and what are their actual real chances of success?

Reply 78

anarchism101

When the House of Commons first came into existence it worked kind of like this:

i) You voted for the MP from your constituency from a list of candidates, who had to be people wealthy enough to be able to spend their time travelling to and from London rather than working for a living. Usually there was only one candidate standing.
ii) The MPs all went down to London, where they would be informed of whatever laws/taxes/etc the King and the House of Lords had decided would be introduced. The House of Commons had no power to block these laws.

What we have today is largely just a modified version of the above. While there is now a formal choice between candidates, the vast majority of seats are uncontested. The candidates that actually stand a chance of getting elected are generally those who can afford to spend more money. Included in those 'safe seats' are most of the people who actually set policy. Most MPs are simply told which way to vote.

Reply 79

Extremotroph

Original post by Observatory

I would rather you answered my points, and put forward your reasons for why we live in a democracy, thus being relevant to the thread, as opposed to jingling around your opinion, which is not based in objective reality, thus has no value to me.