The best short statement I can come up with is that a functional democracy is the best system of accountability that we have come up with. It is the system most likely to keep morons from positions of power. It is the system most likely to eject corrupt leaders.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
I also find that the conclusions, if there are any, from that kind of argument are often not very useful. For example, the UK is in some ways a great place from a constitutional point of view, but that's despite having a totally crap electoral system (I usually don't bother voting: it makes no difference). What makes the UK's constitution great is the way the judiciary really is independent and really can rein in the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
Is that part of democracy? Probably, but it's all very vague and subjective.
What is it then?
(not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions, but I think there is a point, that in most democracies, there is no more power for the demos, once the government has been elected, until the next election. There are exceptions and nuances of course, but direct democracy like in switzerland is quite rare)
Sir, this is a Hacker News thread. Pedantic discussions, heck yes!
I see your point. We seem to be talking about representative vs direct democracies. I would argue both are systems of government. I can see why most implementations are representative. A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? But the Swiss example is interesting. I need to read up on that more. Some factors for the Swiss model may be a much smaller and more educated population? On the face of it direct sounds ideal. I would love to hear a Swiss HNer's gripes.
True, which is why I prefer small states.
I'd say it's a property of forms of government, or of constitutions: some of them are more democratic than others. Sometimes it's obvious which of two systems is more democratic; sometimes reasonable people will disagree. There can be different opinions on which criteria are most important. For example, how much does it matter if convicts are not allowed to vote, or if homeless people find it almost impossible to vote in practice? But also it's not really the formal rules that matter. How things work in practice can be more important. How are the rules interpreted? Do people really follow them? What would happen if the government broke the rules? How would people behave in a crisis?
Like I said, my feeling is that the UK has a relatively strong culture of democracy despite having a very bad electoral system and a monarch that could theoretically refuse to give royal assent. I think a government that was really hated by a big majority of the population would be removed without violence before too long. I think that's how one philosopher (Karl Popper?) defined democracy. But I'd still like to see things improved.
Is that the only form of democratic government? Thankfully, not, but this isn't talked about as much as it should be.
They both appear to me to have obsolete mechanics compared to newer implementations.
Obviously, only one viewpoint but quite interesting.
[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9/episodes/player
Since you are supposed to choose someone who will lead your country, it means you understand what that person says. Some su PO er basic test on that would be welcome.
Then a second part on general culture, such as name a country we have a border with. Or who is the current prime minister. Or is your country part of nato or the eu.
Sure this is not democracy anymore, but the vote makes more sense because you know what you vote for. Specifically it does not matter of I find your candidate good or not.
That could be even worse than the accountability of a strongman/autocratic leader. An autocrat may be harder to dispose of, but at least you know they're not very likely to bounce back.
I agree with that one hundred percent. I am not arguing that any one implementation of democracy is The Way, but that the concept is generally superior to other known alternatives.
> Omertà
Thanks for the new vocabulary word! That's a great one.
Many of the professional politicians in Sweden doesn't have any formal degree or professional career, they are uneducated broilers, i.e. morons.
The ruling political party in Sweden, Socialdemokraterna, has given themselves their own lottery system, A-lotterierna, a system filled with filth and corruption like selling lottery tickets on credit (against the law) to poor people, and at the same time legislating on lottery in general. Socialdemokraterna has made over 3 billion SEK on their lottery system.
Democracies strength has been not to go to war against other democracies. But the corruption is still there. And the morons.
I am repeating myself in the thread, but perfect is the enemy of good. Just because there are easily citable instances of corruption does not make the entire concept of democracy invalid, does it?
What would be a better system in your view? Would it still involve elections?
They have lived their entire life in a fake world, made up of political strife between different factions and political scheming against opponents, often within the same organisation.
This is far from reality where the rest of us live, thus that is why I also mentioned professional career as well. When people get contact with reality usually they shed the most stupid ideas they have. And a professional career can even be a stronger antidote against "moronism" than a formal education.
The thing is that the "better system" is never a choice, you have the system you have and the system we (you) have now was never by choice either. "Constitution" is a series of compromises, historical events, traditions and fads.
Thus you have to look where you live a change things depending on that, a system that works in one country will fail in another and so on.
Specifically in Sweden I would revert some parts in the 1974 constitution to the 1809 constitution. The 1809 constitution favours separation of powers whereas the 1974 constitution favours popular sovereignty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_in_Council_(Sweden)
What this shows is that you can have democracy without formally having one, and likewise you can have a dictatorship with democratic constitution like the Soviet union. Constitution is more than the paper it is written on.
Discussions about democracy today has a tendency to focus on what the liberal definition what a democracy is. For instance during the middle ages Kings were elected in Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stones_of_Mora
My criticism against what you wrote was more about what democracies do well, I didn't agree with your points on that and instead gave an alternative, democracies strength has been not to go to war against other democracies.
Thanks for the reply. This is very interesting.