"Democracy" is a western concept. It's intimately related with our own cultural and political history. But this is not necessarily the case for non-Western cultures and countries.

To-day, democracy has become a sort of a global notion - a notion used everywhere and by everybody as a kind of an "empty moral reference" (who of the to-day's world leaders would classify him/herself as an anti-democrat ?). But this globalised notion possesses an extremely fuzzy content (if any).

What is the consequence of this: there doesn't really exist a political vision or model of how to govern our societies which all are rooted in local cultural traditions and hence are manifestations of an extreme cultural diversity.

The only reference model that to-day is accepted by more or less all political players is the actually dominating so-called (but highly anti-liberal and arbitrary) economic liberalism.

Ther is an interesting book related to question:

Ann E. Cudd, Sally J. Scholz (eds.) Philosophical Perspectives on Democracy in the 21st Century 2014

Dear Costas

Are very different from one country to another and even from one continent to another , but everywhere ultimately want the same : peace , stability and prosperity , and translated into concrete issues : jobs , decent wages , decent housing , education quality , reasonable pensions.

But the great economic and geopolitical changes that await us in this 21st century, which largely have started, are products primarily to the expansion of the middle classes around the world . The globalization that fostered the growth of the middle classes has two faces: one positive , which distributes to all synergistic benefits , and other negative , in which the effects are zero sum . Examples : the jobs that are created in China disappear U.S. , and the oil consuming cars in Paris goes up in price when there are many who want to ride a car in Mumbai ; emissions to the atmosphere from industrialized countries throughout history limit possibilities for future development of emerging and require them to invest in less polluting technologies .

Without their middle classes behind , pressing and demanding , with a huge potential for consumption , a growing weight in the global economy and even a new national pride, would not be possible these new attitudes that mad American and European diplomats . European and American middle classes demonstrated that is where they grow best in free and democratic regimes . But it does not mean that freedom and democracy are the essential allowance for expansion.

In Spain we know first hand the expansion of the middle classes under the dictatorship . Thanks to dictatorship , say the skeptics regarding freedoms . Despite the dictatorship , answer liberals . There is a historicist reflection: applies to the largest pool of middle classes of the story that is China . And transcends the Chinese context . The world is desocidentalizando by forced march , according to expression of Javier Solano , used a few days in Barcelona in his first conference as president of the Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics of ESADE .

The future of freedom and democracy around the world will depend largely on how the relationship of the middle classes with individual freedom and parliamentary democracy .

It is a fact the control of all critical aspects of our society (energy, food, health, education, mass media) has passed to the hands of a few families, those who clever founded the eternal money generator machine which is constituting from

1)the use of banknotes, the term 'credit' is crucial, I take the paper and I believe that it will continue to have value in the future (by this view we can explain the collapse in bond markets of southern europe: now their ability to create 'money from nothing' is zero and thus they are more dependent)

2)the fractional banking system, ie the demand for only a fraction of the nominal deposits to be really deposited at bank (see tierr -1 index and other banking issues)

__________________________________________________________________

Since they believed that they invented the 'eternal motion' and since that project succeeded 100%, the above families have become increasingly greed last decades, after the liberalism of Reagan and Thatcher.

Now we are entering a new Medieval Era with the 1% of population to have all and the rest of 99% to try to survive and to believe that, if they are good boys and girls, then probably they will be hired from the 1% to serve their corporates.

I cannot estimate the time that this era will last, since this has to do with China and other new rich countries on talk.

Democracy is a dead item in our world.

"Democracy" is a western concept. It's intimately related with our own cultural and political history. But this is not necessarily the case for non-Western cultures and countries.

To-day, democracy has become a sort of a global notion - a notion used everywhere and by everybody as a kind of an "empty moral reference" (who of the to-day's world leaders would classify him/herself as an anti-democrat ?). But this globalised notion possesses an extremely fuzzy content (if any).

What is the consequence of this: there doesn't really exist a political vision or model of how to govern our societies which all are rooted in local cultural traditions and hence are manifestations of an extreme cultural diversity.

The only reference model that to-day is accepted by more or less all political players is the actually dominating so-called (but highly anti-liberal and arbitrary) economic liberalism.

Democracy may be a western "term", the concept is more global. Pathan jirgas until around 200 years ago (before they were coopted by colonial and then Pakistan/ Afghan governments) were fairly representative institutions. Same is true for other societies (Robison/ Acemoglu, North/Weingast).

The work of Douglas North/ Barry Weingast on management of violence, that of Acemoglu/ Robinson on institutions and that Bueno de Mesquita on political economy all suggest (at least to me) the following arrangement. as societies grow prosperous, the distribution of power and wealth is spread to more and more. This means that decision making is more and more widely shared. This wider decision making is the basis of democracy. So for e.g. in a developing country such as Pakistan (where I live), even with democracy, there is limited participation of common people in decision making. Public goods are limited and private goods abound (as seen from the portion of the government budgets that go to public goods, also how the government seeks to create private monopolies and rents). Even the political process is beholden to who is on the "inside track". Contrast that with say Sweden or Canada where the public participates resource allocation and public goods take up the majority of government spending.

I think that notion that democracy is waning today (I think quite the opposite) comes from a yes-no world view. In this if someone has more say in a society than others then they "control" everything and others dont have anything. In reality the situation is more of a graded reality. Some people will always have more priviliges, power, luck, money, anything. The good thing of democracy and the world today is that more people have more of a say in how their lives are run than ever before. In actual numbers and in proportions.

I do not have all the interesting political notions of most partecipants to this discussion, but I want to express my "feeling" more than a real opinion. If I am not wrong, democracy is a word coming from ancient Greek language where "demos" is people and domocracy should be a political concept which should help people needs (the so-called "social state"). How do you think that this concept could be married with " monetary dictatorship"? It seems that real democracy at the moment is only a linguistic expression went out of fashion.I really hope to be wrong!

In my opinion, information globalized society would help definitely to bring "true" democracy.

Democracy has been historically embedded in culture and history and their real perspectives and contents. There is no such a thing as a "universal" formal abstract democracy. Accordingly, the emergent technologies, the NBIC+S technologies and the like will help both understand and transform democracy.

I am on the optimist side that claims: democracy has a history, and we are reaching a far deep and large concept of democracy thanks to new knowledge and tech., among other aspects.

Dear Maris, you are right! Athens was based on slavery. In this period of time the winners use to take the ones theyy lost the battle as slaves. Thus slaves did not considered as citizens of Athens. The important think is that under these circumstances Klesthenes gave to Athenians Democracy, since they win it through their struggle against the Spartans.

Dear All,

I think Peter has put well the essence of our impressions and beliefs on democracy. Often this is but a desire and we do not recognise that we are deeper and more completely exploited and manipulated than never before.

Media and tricky marketing work efficiently and our race allows the finance capital to rule us like beasts in circus. They do not need to have a stick but only a small piece of carrots.

Dear Costas and Maria,

The difference is only but these days the number of slaves are much higher than in the ancient ages with an important differentiation: the slaves of present time think they would be free.

And they are really free of decision and power...

In my view, I think most "democracies" are run by large multinational companies, especially consumer goods, pharmaceuticals and petrochemical. Which government today exists, without the backing of private companies?

The influence of multinationals will get bigger and incorporate most of the democratic world into playing the game their way - the way of maximum profit. This in itself will "preserve" democracy as we know it, except that it isn't.

Then there will always be the rest of the world which is run by madmen, communist and religious rule. As long as they have something of value to the democratic world, they will be financially preserved, otherwise fall into poverty, anarchy, war etc.