There is no such thing as democracy, transparency and political guidance, because the nature of man is the pursuit of power, control and selfishness.

Moustafa

I certainly do not disagree with the limitations of founding true democracy, nor am I sure what that means. But I still agree with the idea that although democracy is uncertain, it is far better in the long term than autocracy.

Is there something better?

Lou

Lou,

I do not think democracies are taking the threat from Russia seriously enough-appearances to the contrary. Russia presents a monster from the past, which needs finishing off. Sorry for the martial posture! Plurality in all its different ways is the future, bringing wealth and benefits!

I am thinking more along the lines of evolution; can democracy just "hope off" - and not under go change?

Lou

Thank you, appreciated.

Lou

My position is that democracy is under immense threat from the Russo/Ukraine war in that belief in global rules, for one that neighbours are not attacked, but more so as Russia is a member of the security council and thereby its actions have weakened that organisation. The UN has been stripped of authority. Russia's war crimes are flung in the world's face on a 'try and do something about it' position. Now, we have now a number of self perpetuating blocks, BRIC, the union of right wing/authoritarian countries India/Russia/China, the latter who give the nod to Russia's invasions and crimes (rapes, murders, tortures, kidnapping of children and modifying their ethnicity into Russian, and of course genocide in order to win an unwinnable war), and indeed NATO.

The rise of authoritarian government has put enormous pressure on democracy. Criminal governance, that is elite criminal groups running governments, as in Russia, is on the rise again and thereby shared values diminishing.

The US and other ``democracies'' were born in war and expanded into neighbor's territory by war. When a group cannot (or better, will not) meet the demands of war it begins to fail. It takes some time (generations) before the acquired resources thru war are depleted. The US began as a republic with a healthy distrust of the ``common man''. IMO the viewpoint started to change with TR (some say Wilson) toward a more pure form of democracy such as having the Senate elected by popular vote. Later with FDR, JFK, and LBJ saw the beginning of the final decline structure.

RE:Survival

http://www.intellectualarchive.com/getfile.php?file=4iiOU3EAbwi&orig_file=J_C_Hodge__Survival.pdf

The US voters have adopted in a passive nurturing mentality. They have become valuing faith instead of hope, beauty instead of love, and mercy for all. As stated in the paper this leads to reduced desire for knowledge (predictability), ignoring truth for accepting lies as long as the lies are beautiful, and perverting justice (anti-police and releasing criminals). This attitude results in excessive waste of resources and being unable to adopt to change (inability to solve crises so that the number of crises existing at any one time grows). Eventually thee will be some small crisis that will trigger a collapse and the nation will change structure. The structure change can be to allow a better management to overrule the weak voters of reverting to amore basic structure like a civil war where states become the senior authority. Which would you prefer?

John,

Certainly USA is an incomplete democracy but its earliest members would have said that its shambolic nature is a testimony to its democratic nature. But, yes, there are problems. The use of guns and the strange way weapons have come to represent freedom. The sheer nastiness of many of its positions...

but, but....I think you conclusions are generalisations but such a large and opposing country produces generalisations....

The reality of democracy? When I was younger British democracy could have been seen as assisting in the support of an elite who corralled the money and power, became MPs, became heads of army and navy, became professionals. The owner of a huge company might have embezzled money, but he equally might have been judged by a cousin. What this democracy had was 'rule of law', which affected everyone. This was born of democracy, where law gave rights.

Stanley,

The last election in the US saw the republicans campaigning on the results of Democrat government - inflation, crime, etc. They predicted a ``Red wave''. Their prediction proved false. This implies they do not understand that truth and justice just do not matter to the majority. The Dems in the cities prevail over the republicans in the country (dictatorship of the majority).

When you were younger, Britain had already seen the result of what the US is experiencing now (at ca 1910-20). They lost their empire which was supported by force with the promise and, as it turned out, the reality of better economic conditions for the people (as evidenced by the decline in economic health of the many of the previous colonies).

I think it best not to reify democracy, because in reality, and despite some similarities, it is not and has never produced a single uniform phenomenon.

Rather, I see it as a dynamic set of processes, interpreted to a large degree by their historical and ongoing outcomes. So a question I find helpful to ask of a specific democracy is: How, where, through whom, and in what ways is it democratising, or not?

There are many studies which, in or across (eg comparatively) specific countries, explore such democratising (and de-democratising) processes.

That enables the question to be framed differently.

Bill, usually democracy is understood in opposition to autocracies whereby involvement through voting and institutions involving aspects of the community is not there, independent judiciary for example.

Yes, Stanley that is one common way to understand democracy. However even if we adopt this institutional definition, we need to be aware that these institutions are not static but changing dynamically. The balance of evidence suggests that in many so-called democracies they are often being hollowed out. We need to know why how and where this is happening. Especially for the 'why' we need a deeper definition of democracy - one closer to the meaning of its parts - the power (cratos) of the demos (people) from which institutions arise and through which they are hollowed out etc.

That's why it is helpful to ask of any specific democracy is: How, where, through whom, and in what ways is it democratising, or not? And who is the demos and what is nature and extent of its power? That is why, for example, debates about and campaigns for a 'larger we' matter.

While these question can be asked of relevant institutions, they need also to be asked more broadly (eg of the communities and/or elites and/or societies which collectively inherit, foster and create or undermine and hollow out democracy, locally, subnationally, nationally and beyond). Democracy and democratisation are, I suggest, always in any country a work in progress or regress.

One book (of many useful books) which seeks a more inclusionary definition of democracy (ie one that enlarges who 'we the people' are) is:

Love, Nancy S., Musical Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006.

For the start of this book see

https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780791481240_A40633811/preview-9780791481240_A40633811.pdf

If interested, you can follow waves of citing literature eg via Google Scholar. Also, see my question and ensuing discussion on RG on the role of emotions as one of four core motivators of collective action, including the kinds of democratising collective action which motivate (and thus foster) healthier and more inclusive democracy.

Bill, thanks,

Bill, internal pluralism, many active civil institutions, and conversation about them.