Undoubtedly Democracy is the best system, but is there any room of improvement?
Yes, economic democracy and earth sharing; political democracy is a first step, but not sufficient.
Yes in US, stop use of and undo the electoral college that usurps the peoples vote and thus reneges their democracy.
Democracy is a highly contested concept. There are plenty of definitions that comes from different traditions and disciplines. However, if we agree that democracy is a political regime, we are talking about a set of rule of access to power. This is a method to decide who governs rather than something that guarantees results. I follow that procedural definition that usually considers the two requirements stablished by Dahl (1971): inclusion and contestion. As result, we can say that democracies can be constantly improved, implementing different contents. There is room for “improvement” whatever it means, as long as we do not attempt against the basic core dimensions.
One of the rooms to improve democracy is to remove hierarchical, authoritarian relationships from educational system. This situation creates double-thinking and self-censorship, even when the society declares its democratic way of development. It's, so called, "paradox of democracy" (Blayone, 2016).
Can you please elabotate/explain/give examples and give the full citation/link to article?
Mary-Helen, here it is:
Blayone, T., vanOostveen, R., Barber, W., DiGiuseppe, M., & Childs, E. (2017). Democratizing digital learning: Theorizing the Fully Online Learning Community model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 13. doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0051-4
“Democratized learning” is a loose, boundary construct with scattered presence in the literature (Jones & Graham, 2015; Rubin, 2007). Löwy (1990) notes that such constructs often emerge through cross-disciplinary inquiry, and can facilitate innovations in research, even though they may remain ill-defined throughout their scientific life span. In the context of international FOLC research collaborations, four “boundary markers” have emerged to describe democratized learning:
Democracy is for the welfare for the people,democracy runs under quite good political party of their of their various norms & periodic election for electors remain the guideline for the democracy . In this regards if the political parties have their own interest of their parties than over rule action of their people remain voiceless for their argument & also for their program this is certain a drawback in the democracy only advantage in democracy remains that the people are indirectly a an governing authority in the sense that during the election process they may change the government .
This is my personal opinion
These are what I think should be improve about democracy:
yes there is room for improvement. African leaders need to respect divergent views of constructive criticism. I think countries need to be run by CEOs who must submit CVs of proven records in running companies regardless of citizenship. The interview must be conducted by well known leaders from different businesses
The democratic system can be improved by increasing political awareness related to the welfare of society and by improving popular participation in that system. The persistence of authoritarian regimes and military dictatorships with the political stalemate in some countries is pushing peoples towards freedom and democracy by force. Therefore, the democratic system is considered the breathing space for these peoples and its efficiency is enhanced by spreading awareness, improving education and the need for freedom.
Dear Rai,
I think it is pivotal to determine which conceptualisation of democracy are we analysing here.
If we take the case of the hegemonic form of democracy today--Western liberal constitutional multiparty democracy--then we can safely say that it has not delivered the expected outcome(s) in the developing world. Liberal democracy is rooted in the doctrine of political liberalism, which assumes the centrality of the individual subject; the desirability of the free-market as a way to achieve economic development; prioritises private property accumulation over re-distribution of wealth; and conceives the state as a mere facilitator. Overall, the equation is one of "freedom above equality".
In this sense, I think that rather than amending (or "improving" to use your words) the current model, liberal democracy, we need to look for viable alternatives that are not only more functional but also more adequate to the realities of the citizens of the developing world. Portuguese sociologist, Boaventura de Sousa Santos, argues that this process can only come about by foregrounding and heeding to the knowledges and experiences of the people in the Global South.
Rethinking democracy may take much more than just amending the current framework.
What on earth makes you think I am excietd-- sounds more like you are. This is a forum for ademic discussions and yours is a teribble answer that contributes nothing to the discussins. Try Twitter.-- where it belongs.
Democracy is a game of number and some times it excludes popular opinion.
Let's start with the real existence of the democracy in somewhere, if it is, and then, compare the meanings of the it among the different geographies, cultures, and personal beliefs. The related outcomes will be an indication for improvement, but again, what direction is called improvement for you versus others?!
1- The democratic system of a democratic country should be taught in schools.
Have the students grow up with the idea that they are going to be the leaders of tomorrow and they must all be informed and engaged by making their voice heard through their vote. In most schools we do teach by example. We have student governments or voting systems when choices need to be made, etc.
2- Voting should be mandatory for all the adult citizens.
There should be some kind of system to set up to ensure that all the able citizens that are eligible to vote actually vote. ( I believe it is possible with the technology we have.)
I would like to see some kind of type of reward to all the citizens that vote. Of course, with a reward there might be some kind of consequence to those that vote.
An idea I have is to give the citizens a certain percentage, 5 % for example, added to their income tax returns if they are to receive a refund and by ricochet leave the refund as is if they do not vote.
For those that have to pay income tax, 5% would be deducted from the amount owed and again, nothing deducted for those that do not vote.
This is just an idea. Perhaps, others have better ideas.
Come to think of it, in my country, Canada, a 20$ Tim Horton gift card might do the trick. LOL
3- Transparency
Transparency must prevail at all echelons of governments.
Politicians have to be honest and actually care about the citizens that they need to vote for them. I am so tired of that shit.
4- Lobbyists
This way of doing deals behind closed doors with politicians should be illegal. No wonder, we, as voters, feel that these so called, democratic governments, are not representing the voice of the people but cater to those big multi nationals that basically bought them.
5- Career welfare transferred from one generation has to be dealt with somehow.
I do not have the perfect answer to this. In my life experience, I have seen this happen. Honestly, they seem to have a better life than those of us that are trying to be productive citizens to our country. Honestly, I think they are on to something.
I know of a family where the wife 'divorced' the husband in order to get welfare. The 'ex' still lives with his family and he too is on welfare and works 'under the table' and has extra undeclared income. They seem to live happy contented lives. Their kids are growing up in that kind of value system and it looks like they are on their way to having the kind of life their parents adopted.
6- Working under the table issue.
We all know it exists. I am sure billions of dollars of untaxed sales go uncollected.
I find that to be simply wrong. There is only so much money any democracy can squeeze out of the middle class that live more or less an honest life.
7- Freedom of speech
Coming from a democratic country, I feel blessed that I can express myself without the fear of being silenced by the leaders of my country.
As long as we are able to express ourselves and voice our concerns, perhaps in time we, as citizens, will MAKE a difference.
I mean, I can still hope that things will imporve... I hope.
8- Civil servant issue... Where do I begin!
Also, I truly believe that civil servants must try to be engaged in actually caring in giving a decent service to its citizens. With extreme passion I simply hate those 1-800 numbers where you end up in some obscure voice mail where no one returns your call. Or if you are lucky, the human on the other end of the phone transfers you and if you are lucky, an other human answers and again you are transferred to an other person on and on it goes until you end up in some obscure voice mail where you do not have the phone number of the actual idiot, I mean civil servant, that is supposed to give a hoot to solve your simple question. This way of doing things is immoral, in my opinion.
Of course. Local participation in democratic governance should not be passive but active. Grass root survey before taking major decisions and rolling out policies must be enhanced.
The tendency is to believe that changes within democratic institutions, effecting better forms of democracy, will arise from within when-looking at the USA's deeply flawed system where an elite appear to control the processes, and UK, where the processes encourage ongoing conservatism, built against change-a re-think needs to occur outside of democratic processes. Research into what governments do or should do, local government, groups within local ad-hoc politics, media, etc. Walking blind into unknown futures has to some extent worked, creating stability but not much more.
You need the correct balance of individual liberty and collective decision making to maintain the general peace in your society. So, really, it doesn't really matter what form it takes. It's constantly changing anyway as enough people raise reasonable concerns in relatively peaceful ways. What's "reasonable"? That which contributes to peace and stability.
Interested? See my "On the dissent theory of political obligation" in POLITY (Winter, 1995).
Christopher NOCK
Political participation enhances people confidence in the government of the day. Democracy provides an avenue for those at the grassroot to also contribute to decision making and to the issues that will affect their lives.
Dear Rai,
Fascinating question. Congrats!
You have captured the essence of the theme to get people paying attention. I am following.
My best wishes.
Prof. Hess
democracies work best on the basis of trustworthiness. If the voters believe the system can deliver fairness and, over time, responds to social needs, it is trusted, it is seen as legitimate. Social democracy and liberal democracy may sometimes conflict, particuarly is the liberal compnent is overly based on economic freedom. The post war welfare state last century balances social and economic needs, but was undermined by too much powerbeing given as economic freedoms, which ignore social connectivity and the common good. It is an imperfect system because we have contradictory needs that have to be balanced, so the less powerful are not ignored. This means governments need to ensure that good societies are viable, not just growing GDP. Power needs to be balances so we have social goals served by economic means. Current high distrust levels breed undemocratic desires for simplistic populism and voted in 'strong men' with serious undemocratic results eg fascism
.
There are no concrete definition for the term Democracy. Therefore, it is depend on time , occasion, context and political actions of the people. Further, it is transforming ideology as well as phenomenon. It will sharp by the action of the people and sharpening the ideology of the general mass. Better democracy will be occured in a better society which people who have well education. it will help to improve richfull ideologies among the public. Democracy, also will be improved through these matters.But, it will not happen suddenly. It will take a long time period. Like since classical democracy to modern democratic concept and it,s applications.
Democracy means rule by the people. In a perfect democracy each person would have an exactly equal say in making the rules.
So democracy is a matter of degree. Countries are regularly rated as to the extent they are democratic.
Democracy is not an ideology. It is a state, greater or lesser depending how much power the people have.
If you grant that India and Botswana are democracies, then democracy can work with high illiteracy and low development.
Democracy is not, per se, about health or wealth. It is about the people ruling. Democratic countries do tend to be healthier and wealthier which would indicate that democracy is preferable to autocracy.
Similarly, democracy is not, per se, about liberty or justice. Nor is it about equality except equal power to rule. Of course democracy realises these aims better than autocracy. If you say there should be a balance between democracy and liberty, you are saying YOUR opinion should prevail, not the people’s.
To Beemnet Mengesha Kassahun: your program seems reasonable but if YOU say what should be done, that is not the PEOPLE saying it, is it? Not democracy.
No one designed the two party system. It evolved and reflects a basic opposition intrinsic to a social animal which talks. Such an animal must discuss how to be social and this left-right opposition (perhaps among others) will arise unless it is prevented by authoritarian measures.
I think trustworthiness is an outcome, rather than a precondition, of democracy. Switzerland, far the world’s most democratic country, is rather based on DISTRUST—no leader at all; no language or religion can dominate; all foreign treaties must go to national referendum—and many more curbs on politicians.
If the emphasis in the post war democracies has been too much on the economy, too little community, is this not a result of lack of democracy? That is, of the people not having enough of a say, of undemocratic forces having too much say?
A democracy that does not produce economic dividends is as useless as any other system of governance. Thus, for democracy to be "the best system", it must be reflected in the well-being of the citizens. It should not just be periodic free and fair elections, freedom of speech, etc. It should put the well-being of the citizenry at the center of every policy. Indeed there are several rooms for improvement for democracy.
"A democracy that does not produce economic dividends is as useless as any other system of governance."
No no. There is more to human life than the economy. For example, dignity, respect, community. And as someone said, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.
Still, economic benefits are nice. Do you have some examples of democracies where there weren't any?
"Democracy" is not enough; evidence of this is Trump's election in the US. Democracy as a platform for govrnance must be paired with respect and trust, a firm belief in truth and the rule of law, moral integrity, and a population-wide expectation for informed electoral participation. Democracies can become lazy and that is when demigods can rise to power with little regard for any of the elements of a healthy democracy......putting democracy itself at risk.
To judge from the comments here, democracy is whatever the commenter would like it to be.
Democracy is not a type of morality. To link it with respect, trust, truth, etc clouds its meaning.
Democracy is a form of rule: rule by the people. It is not normative; good and bad don’t enter into it. If every person had an exactly equal influence in forming the rules, the democracy would be perfect. The extent to which a polity deviates from this ideal—the extent to which some people have a greater say than others—is the extent to which it is an oligarchy.
Trump got elected without a majority of votes. Thus he is there through a lack of democracy. Then again, the US could be happy it has Trump and that it doesn’t have a Putin. Or a Stalin. This is a big deal—a very big deal. How has the US escaped this terrible fate? Because on the democracy-oligarchy scale it is toward the democratic end.
Well, Stalin--or his USSR--did rescue us all from the Nazi jackboot. So give him some credit. And the 25 million Russians who died for that cause!
Who wants democracy? What you should actually want is a society that gives you, AND your fellow citizens the best chance of peace and relative prosperity. You'll get the first of those if people are sufficiently happy with current arrangements no to protest against them. That's why a good monarchy might be acceptable. That's why Hobbes (and Locke) thought it could command consent.
So you don't need perfectly equal representation, as long as those with less see benefits in current arrangements. Rather like unequal economic arrangements. Capitalism perhaps?
Christopher NOCK
No need to, unless everyone obeys rules and participates (goes out to vote) which is very rare. That is how Trump got in.
Nobody has democracy and nobody should want it. To repeat my previous answer!
Boy it don't take you guys long to fall back into Cold War mode! Is that the last time you felt safe? Or when you were proud of the very best American Capitalist Democracy in the whole entire world? And the only one! Please don't tell me you speak American as well. I might just gag!
Christopher NOCK
Michael Issigonis No it is not-- exact opposite! HC got the popular vote Trump got it through through the elcetoral vote
You seem to have missed the point of Michael's answer, which is to say the very thing you criticize him for not doing. Too many of your answers are just plain rude.
Christopher NOCK
WOW...What an interesting discussion. I´ll keep following!
I can see parts of what our fellow Dr. Nock says right here in my country as clear as water!
And it happens with all of the other guys.
Really, amazing!
Thank you, fellow professors! These reflections enrich the discussion largely.
Democracy should be seen as a progressive phenomenon. As I stated earlier, democratic institutions can be improved and deepened or may need to be further consolidated. The implication is that political competition in any given democracy can be made fairer and more open; participation can become more inclusive and vigorous; citizen’s knowledge, resources, and competence can grow; elected (and appointed) officials can be made more responsive and accountable; civil liberties can be better protected; and
the rule of law can become more efficient and secure.
In addition, political institutions of democratic systems must be more coherent, capable, and autonomous so that all major political players in the system are willing to commit to and be bound by their rules and norms. Improved protections for civil liberties and minority rights are also an essential condition for improving democracy BUT ABOVE ALL, I still maintain that a democracy that does not provide democratic dividends is as useless as any other system.
My humble opinion.
"Still, economic benefits are nice. Do you have some examples of democracies where there weren't any?" - Mike Pepperday
Mike kindly look around, there are several of them across the globe: from Latin America-Asia-Africa-Eastern Europe, etc.
I would like to suggest the democratisation of democracy. What do I mean by that? Representative democracies suffer from different deficits in representation, participation, transparency etc. Trust in institutions is also declining. So what many suggest is democratic innovations for deliberative and participatory democracy. I think mini-publics, citizens' assemblies, participatory budgeting etc. can help to improve the quality of representative democracies (which I wouldn't doubt or question in general). Moreover, I am an advocat of the democratisation of our daily lifes - institutions like schools and workplaces are still ruled in authoritarian style. This can changed through workplace democracy and other forms of flat hierarchies. The shortcomings and problems of capitalism could be tackled by workplace democracy in a first step. There is much work on all that (including some own contributions).
Unfortunately democracy, as a basis of government, is a new experiment. White men, with land and money, created the original model here in the U.S. France came along next. But the operationalization, in fact, was never very democratic or egalitarian. Minorities, the vulnerable and poor, women, and many others have never been fully welcomed into practicing democracies because those in power have not wanted to know, or to embrace, perspectives that did not benefit those in power.
Democracy is, theoretically, the best option for governance as long as there is a basis to believe that the mass population is capable of making rational decisions (votes) with the goal of maximizing the quality of life for all. This requires universal education, meaningful employment and compensation, other-oriented civil society, and tolerance (or welcoming embrace) for all forms of human diversity.
It is not that democracy is a bad idea, but it has never been fully and faithfully tested. That is why men like the current US president and his enablers are so desperately aligning with dictators and "big men" to restrict justice, suffrage, opportunity, and engagement of all voices. Soon the U.S. will have a white minority. Then the destructive politics that we have seen in recent years ( I hope) will be moot.
I think that there is a significant amount of work to do to improve the efficiency of the functioning of democratic regimes in the world. As a first step, the democratic regimes themselves should be democratized. As a well-known fact, the so-called democracies in many countries are generally restrictive and inefficient in the sense that they do not reflect the demands of the public but serve only a small elite. Secondly, democracy as a term should be redefined as it now becomes a term to cover-up improper applications of governments. Today, many countries around the world have been hiding behind the term "democracy" while running the business, but usually do not hesitate to apply autocratic approaches in practice.
Democracy as a concept is a superb idea. However, a deep analysis of democracy as is currently implemented one would have to require change of the definition of democracy. How would you explain the use of state machinery by incumbents to remain in power “across board”, how about 1% controlling 90% of the national wealth.Above all, through capitalism democracy entrenches, the concept of individualism at the expense of the whole which jeopardizes the sustainable coexistence of human beings, yet, it’s relatively the best model of governance currently in practice but lacking in so many aspects
The political and social order is dependent on human nature and the human condition. So everything is relational. As the context, conjuncture, problems, contradictions, tensions and sources that produce them change, the "good" solutions and systems related to them also change. There is therefore always the possibility that democracy may not remain "the best political system" until the end.
Democracy is not the best political regime. Firstly, because it is indirect, representative, which reduces the level of participation of the maximum number of citizens. This participation is limited to elections and nothing more. In the process of developing and making political decisions, citizens do not play a key role and have little influence on this process. Secondly, democracy contributes to the intensification of social and political divisions that produce lines of demarcation. Third, democracy is very unstable and very often uses non-democratic instruments for the reproduction of the social order.
There is no democracy without freedom of the press.
https://rsf.org/en/index
In true democracy if the distribution is even there will be no scarcity. But the so-called democratic countries suffer from hunger. So true democracy is merely a theoretical concept. As such many miles to go to reach the ideal democracy.
Democracy is too good. But centralised democracy is too bad. Sometimes it surpasses the dictatorship even.
My answer is based on a deconstruction POV.
To start with, democracy like freedom and other terms in language, are transcendental signifieds , namely these are concepts invested with absolute authority, which places them beyond questioning or examination. These terms differ and defer endlessly moving from one signifier to another. That being said, democracy for Putin and Xi Jinping for example is not the same democracy for Biden and Boris Johnson; the term evades the snares of consensus because its meaning depends on who is defining it.
So, in a nutshell, when you say democracy is undoubtedly a good system, my question is what is democracy and which democracy you are refering to?
The concept of democracy without no doubt is obviously the best form of governance. In other words, it is a system that promote freedom of people and to express their will in the decision making, policies, rules, regulation of the state. However, democracy can be improve in many ways depending on the status quo. In other words, the improvement of democracy should begin on people by educating and sensitizing them the importance of been a democrate. Additionally, improving policies and laws that oversees our action in order to avoid abuse of power correlated with specific term limit that will also help in the enhancement democracy
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology