Hacker News Reader

Comment by bloak | Hacker News Reader

In my opinion that's a stupid saying because democracy isn't a "form of Government". In reality there is an infinite range of forms of Government and people can argue for ever about which form is more or less democratic than which other forms.

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.

View on HN

> In my opinion that's a stupid saying because democracy isn't a "form of Government".

What is it then?

A system to create a government?

(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)

>not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

"A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? "

True, which is why I prefer small states.

> What is it then?

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.

Agreed. The fact that it's so easily winner-takes-all in the UK means that there is a real lack of representation of the plurality of views in the country, and a minority can basically run what amounts to a temporary dictatorship.

Is that the only form of democratic government? Thankfully, not, but this isn't talked about as much as it should be.

Both the US and the UK are certainly not the best exemplars of democracy in the 21st century.

They both appear to me to have obsolete mechanics compared to newer implementations.

The Reith Lectures in 2019 were titled: Law and the Decline of Politics [1].

Obviously, only one viewpoint but quite interesting.

[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9/episodes/player

Reply on news.ycombinator.com