Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Stoppelmann]

Different experts propose various factors that may contribute to the perceived decline in democratic governance. Some argue that social development, particularly economic inequality and social polarisation, can undermine democracy. High levels of inequality may lead to dissatisfaction among citizens, eroding trust in democratic institutions. Additionally, social polarisation and the rise of populism can strain democratic norms and institutions.

Others point to factors such as money's influence in politics, corruption, and the erosion of democratic norms as significant contributors to democratic decline. Technological advancements and their impact on information dissemination and manipulation are also seen as potential threats to the democratic process.

What do you think?

[Lagayascienza]

I think democracy is, at best, an imperfect system. Still, as far as I can see, some form of democracy is the best we can hope for. What is has in its favour compared to authoritarian or totalitarian systems of government is the chance it provides to get rid of bad governments without violent revolution. But it does depend on all parties agreeing to accept the verdict of the electorate until the next election. I think that is an agreement worth holding to.

[Xenophon]

I think democracy is, at best, an imperfect system. Still, as far as I can see, some form of democracy is the best we can hope for. What is has in its favour compared to authoritarian or totalitarian systems of government is the chance it provides to get rid of bad governments without violent revolution. But it does depend on all parties agreeing to accept the verdict of the electorate until the next election. I think that is an agreement worth holding to.

I live under a highly undemocratic government. Infrastructure is (mostly) good, the streets are the safest of any land I have been in (and I've been in a good many.) The Volk are not groaning or raging (sorry for the out-of-place Germanism, but the country is more or less mono-ethnic.) Freedom of speech, while limited, is rather greater than the U.S. or E.U. currently permits its denizens. In short, to Wiley-Pete white-hot Hades with "democracy's" drug. By this weary year of 2024, it's a tattered bill of goods that only distracts doped-out dupes.

[Lagayascienza]

To what extent is free speech limited in the countries you mention? When I last looked, people in the US, the UK, the EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, etcetera, which all have relatively high social indicators, had the right to say pretty much whatever they wanted without the risk of being sent to a gulag. In contrast, criticising the government in all too many countries ruled by non-democratic regimes can result in your imprisonment or your simple disappearance. You said that the regime in your country was not democratic but that, despite this, the volk were not groaning or raging. So do you think, on that basis, your country's undemocratic system works better than the types of democracy seen in the US, the UK, the EU, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc? The volk in your country may not be groaning or raging, but is that because that the volk are happy with their government, or is it because they are too afraid to groan or rage? If they are happy with their government, then maybe it's a better system than the democracies we think we enjoy here in the west. I'd love to know what form of government that is.

[LuckyR]

The reality is that governmental leaders wield tremendous power. This power can be used in corrupt ways to enrich political leaders. In countries that have robust economies, those seeking wealth can make more money in industry by buying politicians than they can make by holding political office themselves. Thus those actually in political office generally had some level of internal civic responsibility. However, in countries with weak economies those seeking wealth can make more in political office than outside of government so political corruption is more common.

In more recent times even in strong economic countries, those who "retired" from private equity with great wealth have sought political office as a sort of hobby to garner sycophantic adulation and oh BTW let's make policy that multiplies my wealth.

[Lagayascienza]

I agree with that analysis. And it is true that democracies seem to allow someone with great wealth to buy politicians and to thus increase their wealth at the expense of the many and thus maintain or widen the inequality gap.

Our democracies are imperfect. But that does not make democracy worse than any other form of government. But it does mean that we may still want to find ways to make democracy less imperfect, to make it fairer whilst at the same time providing opportunity and incentive to keep our economies robust.

The question of how to improve democracy might make for an interesting and productive thread in the Philosophy of Politics forum. . How can we improve democracy generally? Or, how can democracy in particular countries, say, the US, the UK or Australia be improved?

[Pattern-chaser]

The reality is that governmental leaders wield tremendous power. This power can be used in corrupt ways to enrich political leaders. In countries that have robust economies, those seeking wealth can make more money in industry by buying politicians than they can make by holding political office themselves. Thus those actually in political office generally had some level of internal civic responsibility. However, in countries with weak economies those seeking wealth can make more in political office than outside of government so political corruption is more common.

In more recent times even in strong economic countries, those who "retired" from private equity with great wealth have sought political office as a sort of hobby to garner sycophantic adulation and oh BTW let's make policy that multiplies my wealth.

Yes, I think that democracy is the best system in practice, even though it has shortcomings. The central issue in any discussion of democracy is what you say here: the ways in which democracy is manipulated, and subverted if 'necessary', by those who have the power and inclination to do so.

[Belindi]

The way to improve who makes the laws and enforces the laws, is to better educate the electorate. This is why everyone should be educated to tertiary level, according to the curriculum that best suits the individual, and free to all. Obviously private schools should be illegal, including religious schools that permit religious governance and indoctrination.

[Pattern-chaser]

The way to improve who makes the laws and enforces the laws, is to better educate the electorate. This is why everyone should be educated to tertiary level, according to the curriculum that best suits the individual, and free to all. Obviously private schools should be illegal, including religious schools that permit religious governance and indoctrination.

Not everyone is capable of achieving those academic standards. What of them? Are they disadvantaged, or even disenfranchised?

[Belindi]

The way to improve who makes the laws and enforces the laws, is to better educate the electorate. This is why everyone should be educated to tertiary level, according to the curriculum that best suits the individual, and free to all. Obviously private schools should be illegal, including religious schools that permit religious governance and indoctrination.

Not everyone is capable of achieving those academic standards. What of them? Are they disadvantaged, or even disenfranchised?

Depends on the academic standards. I think all school curriculums should include 1. civic duties, 2. parenting, and 3. empathy. Age and ability appropriate for each of those.

University education for all should include vocational training and education such as medicine, practical science, and engineering. There are more and less intellectual levels of each of these vocations.

[Pattern-chaser]

The way to improve who makes the laws and enforces the laws, is to better educate the electorate. This is why everyone should be educated to tertiary level, according to the curriculum that best suits the individual, and free to all. Obviously private schools should be illegal, including religious schools that permit religious governance and indoctrination.

Not everyone is capable of achieving those academic standards. What of them? Are they disadvantaged, or even disenfranchised?

Depends on the academic standards. I think all school curriculums should include 1. civic duties, 2. parenting, and 3. empathy. Age and ability appropriate for each of those.

University education for all should include vocational training and education such as medicine, practical science, and engineering. There are more and less intellectual levels of each of these vocations.

We're drifting here, but I will observe that university for all looks like a bad idea to me. There are many jobs that are best taught by apprenticeship, by learning from someone who is already skilled. And there are many more where a combination of academic education and on-the-job training is the best way to learn.

But this topic is about the decline of democracy, so I'll stop there.

[Sculptor1]

Different experts propose various factors that may contribute to the perceived decline in democratic governance. Some argue that social development, particularly economic inequality and social polarisation, can undermine democracy. High levels of inequality may lead to dissatisfaction among citizens, eroding trust in democratic institutions. Additionally, social polarisation and the rise of populism can strain democratic norms and institutions.

Others point to factors such as money's influence in politics, corruption, and the erosion of democratic norms as significant contributors to democratic decline. Technological advancements and their impact on information dissemination and manipulation are also seen as potential threats to the democratic process.

What do you think?

It's a game of numbers.
All the early democracies worked because the social distance between the leadership and the plebicite was small.
Many hunter /gatherer societies thrived because most people were know to each other, or at least had close family connections. In ancient Greece and Early Medieval Iceland it was possible to gather all family heads from each of the Oikoi across the polis and in the case of Iceland and mass meeting of all citizens at the Althing were the mood of the people was immediately obvious with each policy decision.
But whilst Greece was a mass democracy the vote was limited. No women. metics or slaves

The first cracks showed when elected representatives were delegated to a central authority. IN the case of the Res Publica, these were restricted to veterans. In the US and UK representatives were restricted to the aristocracy (yes even the Americans had aristos - though not titled), When democracy was born in the US, only 5% of the population voted in those early POTUS elections until the time of Lincoln where the vote was extended.
5% is a pretty poor show, and was the result of a gender and property qualification.

So this really begs the question. Outside of small scale groups and examples as above. WHEN WAS DEMOCRACY??

It was not until the 20thC that voting included women and unpropertied persons. Shockingly women were not allowed to vote in Switzerland until 1976.

By the time that widespread voting was made possible you can be sure that the Establishment pretty much had the whole shooting match tied up with financial interests of paying lobbyists; pork barrel deals and bribes.
Such corruption is the norm though frowned upon by "standards" dodgy deals are the elephants in the room of the corridors of Whitehall and the Whitehouse.

Social media looked like it was going to crack through the system but the fight back has begun and elections are now engineered through targetted messaging.

For example.
On an objective level immigration is a side show. Immigrants provide more for the economy than they take out. But "foreigners" are a cheap distraction technique to conveniently blame whilst the rich establishment cream the system looting the public purse on a multitude of levels.
But who sets the agenda?

[Pattern-chaser]

So this really begs the question. Outside of small scale groups and examples as above. WHEN WAS DEMOCRACY??

This point isn't often mentioned. It has been creeping up on me for some years now, and finally reached conscious level: human social groups work better when there are many more smaller groups, and not the huge monstrosities that we have now. I think it's like the business management recommendations, that each manager should have a team of (say) seven or less, for optimum performance.

When we have a 'country' with over a billion people (China, etc), it's just too big, and as a result, it doesn't work as well as smaller units could or would.

[Sculptor1]

So this really begs the question. Outside of small scale groups and examples as above. WHEN WAS DEMOCRACY??

This point isn't often mentioned. It has been creeping up on me for some years now, and finally reached conscious level: human social groups work better when there are many more smaller groups, and not the huge monstrosities that we have now. I think it's like the business management recommendations, that each manager should have a team of (say) seven or less, for optimum performance.

When we have a 'country' with over a billion people (China, etc), it's just too big, and as a result, it doesn't work as well as smaller units could or would.

When I studied anthropology as part of my archeology disease I came across this idea as a formal branch of study. Very useful for archaologists to know the social capacity of the groups they are studying. "Magic Numbers" and Dunbar's number, I remember - but too long ago to remember many details.
In Archaic Grecce where I had my own research, people saw their leaders every day, knew where they took a ****, fished, farmed and enjoyed a drink with friends.
Social media has the potential to help shrink the social distance between people, but as we have seen ideaological bubbles tend to form, like religious sub-cultures or cults.
I am staggered though how, particularly Americans, can believe stuff which is so obviously false, and then decry the truth as "fake News" because Trump says so.
The fundemental problem with America, it seems to me, is that it was founded by religious crazies who fled the emerging enlightenment and toleration of Britian and other European countries, What has developed is an ideology in which the strength of belief, faith and choice trumps knowedge, truth and facts. The most dangerous apothegm is "You are entitled to your belief", because in the USA this has become "you are entitled to your facts".
I'm not saying that is true of all Americans, nor that it is only the US who has such people, but the density of MAGALOONS seems puzzling.

[Belindi]

Different experts propose various factors that may contribute to the perceived decline in democratic governance. Some argue that social development, particularly economic inequality and social polarisation, can undermine democracy. High levels of inequality may lead to dissatisfaction among citizens, eroding trust in democratic institutions. Additionally, social polarisation and the rise of populism can strain democratic norms and institutions.

Others point to factors such as money's influence in politics, corruption, and the erosion of democratic norms as significant contributors to democratic decline. Technological advancements and their impact on information dissemination and manipulation are also seen as potential threats to the democratic process.

What do you think?

It's a game of numbers.
All the early democracies worked because the social distance between the leadership and the plebicite was small.
Many hunter /gatherer societies thrived because most people were know to each other, or at least had close family connections. In ancient Greece and Early Medieval Iceland it was possible to gather all family heads from each of the Oikoi across the polis and in the case of Iceland and mass meeting of all citizens at the Althing were the mood of the people was immediately obvious with each policy decision.
But whilst Greece was a mass democracy the vote was limited. No women. metics or slaves

The first cracks showed when elected representatives were delegated to a central authority. IN the case of the Res Publica, these were restricted to veterans. In the US and UK representatives were restricted to the aristocracy (yes even the Americans had aristos - though not titled), When democracy was born in the US, only 5% of the population voted in those early POTUS elections until the time of Lincoln where the vote was extended.
5% is a pretty poor show, and was the result of a gender and property qualification.

So this really begs the question. Outside of small scale groups and examples as above. WHEN WAS DEMOCRACY??

It was not until the 20thC that voting included women and unpropertied persons. Shockingly women were not allowed to vote in Switzerland until 1976.

By the time that widespread voting was made possible you can be sure that the Establishment pretty much had the whole shooting match tied up with financial interests of paying lobbyists; pork barrel deals and bribes.
Such corruption is the norm though frowned upon by "standards" dodgy deals are the elephants in the room of the corridors of Whitehall and the Whitehouse.

Social media looked like it was going to crack through the system but the fight back has begun and elections are now engineered through targetted messaging.

For example.
On an objective level immigration is a side show. Immigrants provide more for the economy than they take out. But "foreigners" are a cheap distraction technique to conveniently blame whilst the rich establishment cream the system looting the public purse on a multitude of levels.
But who sets the agenda?

Your illustrations, Sculptor, all indicate to me that democracy must be preceded by equality of income and equality of access to services such as housing, transport, health, clean air and clean water, and education.
Obviously the power elites want to remain so, therefore education of the hoi polloi must be structured upon history and anthropology so that the hoi polloi may be enlightened about their own status quo .