| Democracy. What is it good for? 08:07 - Jun 12 with 5810 views | NthQldITFC |
I found the primer for the Moral Maze tonight on Radio 4 8pm really struck a chord with me:
Michael Buerk (Radio 4, 07:34):
"It's a paradox of our times: Like us, half the World's population is voting this year in some kind of election, yet everywhere surveys show a loss of faith in democracy and its institutions. It's accused of polarising societies both sides of the Atlantic, of failing to respond to long-term problems like Climate Change, of losing ground to autocracies like China, and losing faith amongst the young. Democracy, it's said, ends up with the wrong decisions, being made by the wrong politicians, who've been picked for the wrong reasons. Can we really still says it's the best, or at any rate least worst, most moral form of government."
Everything seems so corrupted and devalued and we've ratcheted our standards of accountability down so far as we furtively squirrel away individualistically and allow society and environment to crumble, to die really, around us.
We have to stick with democracy, surely, but we need fundamentally accountable democracy which protects our people and our planet - there isn't any alternative. That's not what we get with more of the same, or a slightly different flavour of it, is it?
What can we do? |  |
| |  |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:24 - Jun 12 with 3621 views | Churchman |
Yes, ‘it’s the best, or at any rate least worst, most moral form of government."
The alternative of autocracy, dictatorship is too horrendous to contemplate. Being told what to think, say, do, when to be happy etc etc.
The fact that we have appalling people like most of those stinking out the HoC for the past 14 years plus the orange idiot in America (plus many more besides) just tells me democracy needs to improve and evolve.
However flawed, as your second last para says, it’s principle remains the best hope for peoples. |  | | |
| Absolutely foucalt (n/t) on 08:26 - Jun 12 with 3615 views | Buhrer |
Nt [Post edited 12 Jun 2024 8:26]
|  | | |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:34 - Jun 12 with 3599 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:24 - Jun 12 by Churchman |
Yes, ‘it’s the best, or at any rate least worst, most moral form of government."
The alternative of autocracy, dictatorship is too horrendous to contemplate. Being told what to think, say, do, when to be happy etc etc.
The fact that we have appalling people like most of those stinking out the HoC for the past 14 years plus the orange idiot in America (plus many more besides) just tells me democracy needs to improve and evolve.
However flawed, as your second last para says, it’s principle remains the best hope for peoples. |
You can have benevolent autocratic regimes. Bhutan had an autocratic monarch for years and they loved him. When he announced they were switching to a democracy they almost rioted! |  |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:40 - Jun 12 with 3591 views | NthQldITFC |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:24 - Jun 12 by Churchman |
Yes, ‘it’s the best, or at any rate least worst, most moral form of government."
The alternative of autocracy, dictatorship is too horrendous to contemplate. Being told what to think, say, do, when to be happy etc etc.
The fact that we have appalling people like most of those stinking out the HoC for the past 14 years plus the orange idiot in America (plus many more besides) just tells me democracy needs to improve and evolve.
However flawed, as your second last para says, it’s principle remains the best hope for peoples. |
So how do we break the incestuous connection between between the democratically elected leaders and the corporate interests which are unbalancing any semblance of social justice, and driving the destruction of our life supporting natural world.
The ideal is good, but the corruption of that ideal is ubiquitous and threatening to destroy democracy anyway, and usher in autocratic, populist replacements by default.
Short-term parliaments with big Party entities in cheat-or-die competition are clearly no good. Is it time for some kind of rolling parliament with individuals or small, informal parties steering a transparent and dynamic executive civil service who have responsibility for continuity? Would this be more like a Roman senate type setup?
(I really have little idea what I'm talking about tbh.  ) | |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:42 - Jun 12 with 3583 views | NthQldITFC |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:34 - Jun 12 by Swansea_Blue |
You can have benevolent autocratic regimes. Bhutan had an autocratic monarch for years and they loved him. When he announced they were switching to a democracy they almost rioted! |
But how do you overthrow one which ceases to be benevolent (We all know people who were once OK, but become total arseholes as they get old!) | |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:42 - Jun 12 with 3587 views | Guthrum |
To return to Churchill's quote, which is referenced in that, other methods of govenment are even more flawed.
They are just looking more attractive to some people at the moment because current systems of democracy are not delivering what people demand - and because of effective, well funded propaganda by those with more authoritarian proclivities.
Some of it also comes down to realism and a lack of historical perspective. In much of the world, the lot of the ordinary person in the street (or field) has improved almost beyond measure in the last 200 years. For the bulk of people in the Western world, a cost of living crisis represents difficult choices over buying a home, going on holiday or cancelling TV subscriptions. Maybe cutting down on buying nicer brands of food, or swapping from Tesco to Lidl. Compare that to the Great Depression, where people were scratching around on coal-heaps for food or literally starving in the American Mid-West.
Incidentally, that is the past which some people nostalgically want to go back to. Or the 1950s with Austerity, rationing and National Service.
Politicians have promised so many nice things - which they were never going to be able to deliver, especially under pressure from donors with business interests - and people have, understandably, taken it at face value. Now this endless prosperity has not only failed to appear, but things have slid backwards with the decline of Western heavy industry and consequent regional under-employment.
Really, we should take a longer view that things have improved massively. They most likely will continue to do so, as technology develops and understanding of systems is refined. However, it will not necessarily do so at the incredible rate witnessed since the First World War, transitioning from the steam age to the petrol, electric and then digital - with social reforms to match.
A bit of patience, plus not taking politicians' empty promises so literally (even on a subconscious level). But also not resorting to dictators, who are rarely benevolent and often simply one man making wrong decisions rather than a wider, elected group. |  |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:48 - Jun 12 with 3560 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:42 - Jun 12 by NthQldITFC |
But how do you overthrow one which ceases to be benevolent (We all know people who were once OK, but become total arseholes as they get old!) |
That’s the trouble isn’t it. Although it’s not always easy to vote out rogue democratically elected governments either…
Mind you, I’m not convinced populist governments are a natural end point of democracy as that link seems to imply. We’re certainly at a time when they’re on the rise, but they’re exploiting issues from a variety of causes (immigration from war-torn areas under autocratic control, fallout from the banking crisis caused by lack of regulation, economic models that favour the rich, etc).
Edit - I suppose part of the answer is that we get out and engage or get involved with politics, even at a local level. And vote. Low engagement just favours the vocal agitators like Farage. [Post edited 12 Jun 2024 8:49]
| |
| |
| Absolutely foucalt (n/t) on 08:49 - Jun 12 with 3550 views | DJR |
| Absolutely foucalt (n/t) on 08:26 - Jun 12 by Buhrer |
Nt [Post edited 12 Jun 2024 8:26]
|
Do you mean foucault, as in Michel Foucault, the French philosopher?
I say this because a friend of mine has studied him and talked to me about him a fair bit but I can't say I can remember anything about him. [Post edited 12 Jun 2024 9:32]
|  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 09:11 - Jun 12 with 3503 views | Churchman |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:42 - Jun 12 by NthQldITFC |
But how do you overthrow one which ceases to be benevolent (We all know people who were once OK, but become total arseholes as they get old!) |
I’m sure you are not THAT much of an a-hole. 😃
There are exceptions to every rule. The general rule of autocracies and dictatorships is that they are not benign or benevolent. They are though easy. You don’t have to think or worry. That nice Mr Putin, our dear leader or whoever will do it all for you. Your tv will even tell you how to think. As long as you conform, don’t object and live happily on whatever you are given all will be well.
For many in this world that is how it is. I’ve no doubt for many in this country that’s how they’d like it to be. Not me. It is flawed. Evil. History tells us that. It’s why voting is a precious thing and should be cherished.
That we have a failed set of political numpties has nothing to do with the principle and everything to do with how our democracy operates. It needs reforming. There are plenty of things that could be done, including changing to proportional representation, but the current politicians will protect the system as is because it benefits them. I don’t see how you get over that beyond the gunpowder plot solution (extreme). | | | |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 09:19 - Jun 12 with 3479 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
https://freedomnews.org.uk/2024/02/11/hulls-new-groove-from-arrests-to-assemblie
We believe that ordinary people reclaiming decision making power is the key to unlocking widespread action and the spark that will ignite lasting change. We envisage a network of autonomous people’s assemblies spanning the British Isles, open to all but guided by fundamental ideas like equality, solidarity and duty to people seven generations from now*, making local decisions for themselves and regional or national decisions collectively via accountable and recallable delegates. [Post edited 12 Jun 2024 9:20]
|  |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 09:21 - Jun 12 with 3482 views | Guthrum |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:40 - Jun 12 by NthQldITFC |
So how do we break the incestuous connection between between the democratically elected leaders and the corporate interests which are unbalancing any semblance of social justice, and driving the destruction of our life supporting natural world.
The ideal is good, but the corruption of that ideal is ubiquitous and threatening to destroy democracy anyway, and usher in autocratic, populist replacements by default.
Short-term parliaments with big Party entities in cheat-or-die competition are clearly no good. Is it time for some kind of rolling parliament with individuals or small, informal parties steering a transparent and dynamic executive civil service who have responsibility for continuity? Would this be more like a Roman senate type setup?
(I really have little idea what I'm talking about tbh. ) |
The Roman Senate was equally racked by factionalism and corruption. It proved too weak to stop an outbreak of dictators (Sulla, etc.) and eventual reduction to pretty much a rubber stamp by Octavian/Augustus and his successors. | |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 09:28 - Jun 12 with 3467 views | Guthrum |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 09:19 - Jun 12 by BanksterDebtSlave |
https://freedomnews.org.uk/2024/02/11/hulls-new-groove-from-arrests-to-assemblie
We believe that ordinary people reclaiming decision making power is the key to unlocking widespread action and the spark that will ignite lasting change. We envisage a network of autonomous people’s assemblies spanning the British Isles, open to all but guided by fundamental ideas like equality, solidarity and duty to people seven generations from now*, making local decisions for themselves and regional or national decisions collectively via accountable and recallable delegates. [Post edited 12 Jun 2024 9:20]
|
In a way, the US system is quite anarchistic, in that all public positions down to the lowest levels are voted for by the electorate. Unfortunately, that has just meant that party politics has become a factor in those decisions, divorced from the reality of the jobs officials are being elected for.
As a friend of mine who served as a local councillor said, party politics are irrelevant to repairing roads and waste collection.
Given particular groups and regions have their own agendas, there would need to be checks and balances to prevent a new descent into overarching, permanent political parties. | |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 09:50 - Jun 12 with 3426 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Surely this is an improvement over 2019. We were served up a liar/bigot/chancer, or a man so incompetent and comfortable swimming in sewage he oversaw his party joining the BNP on the list of parties investigated by the EHRC.
Starmer might not be quite the inspirational leader the country wants, but after the previous two ‘characters’, a safe pair of hands is surely appealing.
Ultimately PR would give us more representation. I live in a constituency where my vote counts for nothing - the local MP gets a percentage of the vote that even Putin would be proud of. |  | | |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:02 - Jun 12 with 3395 views | NthQldITFC |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 09:50 - Jun 12 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Surely this is an improvement over 2019. We were served up a liar/bigot/chancer, or a man so incompetent and comfortable swimming in sewage he oversaw his party joining the BNP on the list of parties investigated by the EHRC.
Starmer might not be quite the inspirational leader the country wants, but after the previous two ‘characters’, a safe pair of hands is surely appealing.
Ultimately PR would give us more representation. I live in a constituency where my vote counts for nothing - the local MP gets a percentage of the vote that even Putin would be proud of. |
Yes, definite improvement. But the underlying problems and the lack of willingness to even talk about changing our economic system to an environmentally and socially sustainable one - the (almost) universal adherence to the principles of an expansionist, capital-driven system in what we all know is a finite world, a dying world... it's not enough.
The options which are electorally viable under our current form of democracy don't stretch the boundaries of what we could achieve and what we need to achieve. And the electorate, by and large, are too focussed on smaller, more emotive issues of short-term self-interest and therefore those are the issues which the short-term, self-interested political parties prioritise.
I don't know if some form of PR is 'the answer' (it's clearly not the entire answer), but the system we have now makes us introspective and blind to what we really need. Desperately need. | |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:05 - Jun 12 with 3377 views | Churchman |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 09:50 - Jun 12 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Surely this is an improvement over 2019. We were served up a liar/bigot/chancer, or a man so incompetent and comfortable swimming in sewage he oversaw his party joining the BNP on the list of parties investigated by the EHRC.
Starmer might not be quite the inspirational leader the country wants, but after the previous two ‘characters’, a safe pair of hands is surely appealing.
Ultimately PR would give us more representation. I live in a constituency where my vote counts for nothing - the local MP gets a percentage of the vote that even Putin would be proud of. |
Same for me. A steaming runny turd with a blue rosette gets in where I live. The opposition don’t even bother to campaign. My mate says she’s a good MP. She didn’t vote that barrel of deceitfulness and wind Johnson out so on that alone I could never vote for her. And that’s before one gets to the rest of the mess the scum have created in 14 years.
My vote is utterly wasted. I’ll still do my duty at the polling booth, of course, but it’s a bit annoying. | | | |
| Absolutely foucalt (n/t) on 10:06 - Jun 12 with 3378 views | Buhrer |
| Absolutely foucalt (n/t) on 08:49 - Jun 12 by DJR |
Do you mean foucault, as in Michel Foucault, the French philosopher?
I say this because a friend of mine has studied him and talked to me about him a fair bit but I can't say I can remember anything about him. [Post edited 12 Jun 2024 9:32]
|
Tbf I only now remember I used a quote of his in an essay once paraphrased as "Democracy is flower's garlanding their chains of tyranny". [Post edited 12 Jun 2024 10:07]
| | | |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:09 - Jun 12 with 3326 views | GlasgowBlue |
Based purely on your thread title, I would suggest a year living in North Korea will give you an answer |  |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:19 - Jun 12 with 3294 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:02 - Jun 12 by NthQldITFC |
Yes, definite improvement. But the underlying problems and the lack of willingness to even talk about changing our economic system to an environmentally and socially sustainable one - the (almost) universal adherence to the principles of an expansionist, capital-driven system in what we all know is a finite world, a dying world... it's not enough.
The options which are electorally viable under our current form of democracy don't stretch the boundaries of what we could achieve and what we need to achieve. And the electorate, by and large, are too focussed on smaller, more emotive issues of short-term self-interest and therefore those are the issues which the short-term, self-interested political parties prioritise.
I don't know if some form of PR is 'the answer' (it's clearly not the entire answer), but the system we have now makes us introspective and blind to what we really need. Desperately need. |
Because unfortunately the reality is we’ve pretty much missed every environmental target we’ve set (globally). I know you hate the ‘but China etc’, however how are you going to sell the UK population a new untested economic model which could fail and lead to millions going hungry etc. Meanwhile the world dies anyway because the UK is less than 1pc of global emissions.
The way I see the future, we are just going to have to manage the impact of climate change, the mass migrations, the floods, droughts etc. Mayve I’m a pessimist but I feel we are past the point of no return, and the UK is but a small piece of that. | | | |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:29 - Jun 12 with 3280 views | NthQldITFC |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:09 - Jun 12 by GlasgowBlue |
Based purely on your thread title, I would suggest a year living in North Korea will give you an answer |
I shall pack my bags forthwith and report back mid 2025. Can you get Sky there? | |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:30 - Jun 12 with 3279 views | lowhouseblue |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:09 - Jun 12 by GlasgowBlue |
Based purely on your thread title, I would suggest a year living in North Korea will give you an answer |
it's an astonishing expression of privilege isn't it. it also lacks historical perspective. political accountability isn't any less than it was in the past - with the massive increase in information it's probably greater. democracy has never made everyone happy - it is rule by the consent of the majority not an elixir that makes everyone's problems go away. there are minorities who will never get exactly what they want through democracy. the real issue is that we have had a decade plus of economic set back and more people now are frustrated by what they get, plus the internet makes the dissatisfied louder and more vocal. i'm not sure that our democratic processes are otherwise any less effective than at any point in the past. it is simply harder to negotiate through conflicts and frustration in a tougher economic environment - and conflict shows up the flaws in our processes that have always been there. constant attempts to challenge the legitimacy of democracy are very dangerous and reflect the fact that we have all had the benefits of democracy for so long that we've forgotten how terrible its absence would be. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:31 - Jun 12 with 3262 views | NthQldITFC |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:19 - Jun 12 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Because unfortunately the reality is we’ve pretty much missed every environmental target we’ve set (globally). I know you hate the ‘but China etc’, however how are you going to sell the UK population a new untested economic model which could fail and lead to millions going hungry etc. Meanwhile the world dies anyway because the UK is less than 1pc of global emissions.
The way I see the future, we are just going to have to manage the impact of climate change, the mass migrations, the floods, droughts etc. Mayve I’m a pessimist but I feel we are past the point of no return, and the UK is but a small piece of that. |
I think your current and future view is totally realistic, but I still think we should have a bash. At least we're being honest with ourselves in that scenario. And who knows, it might catch on. | |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 13:23 - Jun 12 with 3153 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:30 - Jun 12 by lowhouseblue |
it's an astonishing expression of privilege isn't it. it also lacks historical perspective. political accountability isn't any less than it was in the past - with the massive increase in information it's probably greater. democracy has never made everyone happy - it is rule by the consent of the majority not an elixir that makes everyone's problems go away. there are minorities who will never get exactly what they want through democracy. the real issue is that we have had a decade plus of economic set back and more people now are frustrated by what they get, plus the internet makes the dissatisfied louder and more vocal. i'm not sure that our democratic processes are otherwise any less effective than at any point in the past. it is simply harder to negotiate through conflicts and frustration in a tougher economic environment - and conflict shows up the flaws in our processes that have always been there. constant attempts to challenge the legitimacy of democracy are very dangerous and reflect the fact that we have all had the benefits of democracy for so long that we've forgotten how terrible its absence would be. |
....."it is rule by the consent of the majority...."
There you go again just making stuff up. | |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 13:57 - Jun 12 with 3108 views | DanTheMan |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 08:34 - Jun 12 by Swansea_Blue |
You can have benevolent autocratic regimes. Bhutan had an autocratic monarch for years and they loved him. When he announced they were switching to a democracy they almost rioted! |
I think this sums it up really.
Autocratic or other forms of dictatorships and monarchies can be great when the person in control is competent and not (for lack of a better term) evil.
The issue is, what do you do when they aren't? You're just back at democracy.
I do think it is worth examining why people are increasingly turning towards extreme ideologies though. And alarmingly it is the younger people. |  |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 14:35 - Jun 12 with 3015 views | Ewan_Oozami |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 10:30 - Jun 12 by lowhouseblue |
it's an astonishing expression of privilege isn't it. it also lacks historical perspective. political accountability isn't any less than it was in the past - with the massive increase in information it's probably greater. democracy has never made everyone happy - it is rule by the consent of the majority not an elixir that makes everyone's problems go away. there are minorities who will never get exactly what they want through democracy. the real issue is that we have had a decade plus of economic set back and more people now are frustrated by what they get, plus the internet makes the dissatisfied louder and more vocal. i'm not sure that our democratic processes are otherwise any less effective than at any point in the past. it is simply harder to negotiate through conflicts and frustration in a tougher economic environment - and conflict shows up the flaws in our processes that have always been there. constant attempts to challenge the legitimacy of democracy are very dangerous and reflect the fact that we have all had the benefits of democracy for so long that we've forgotten how terrible its absence would be. |
Consent of the majority?
Not as far as I can see...
2019 General Election
Party % share
CON Conservative 43.6%
LAB Labour 32.2%
LD Liberal Democrat 11.5%
SNP Scottish National Party 3.9%
GRN Green 2.7%
BRX The Brexit Party 2.0% |  |
| |
| Democracy. What is it good for? on 14:48 - Jun 12 with 2990 views | eireblue |
A functioning democracy, needs the proper engagement of citizens.
It should not just be do your trust/not trust a politician.
Citizens as well Politicians, have a responsibility.
Of course somethings are quite complex, which is why democracy should be executed at the lowest level of power/effectiveness required.
I am surprised/not surprised when nobody reacted to a show of hands on QT recently, on whether anyone thought they had benefited from Brexit. A valid thing to say would be, well electorate, that’s your fault. It is not unusual in any walk of life for their to be charlatans, conmen liars, and people that are simple incompetent in the role they have.
In terms of accountability, if people in a working environment repeatedly promise to do something, and don’t deliver, they get sacked. So our democracy needs to have people that will be explicitly in what they are going to do, explain the independent thing that is going to judge there performance, and then agree that they will leave/resign if they can’t deliver. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
