CreateDebate


Debate Info

29
24
Good Not good
Debate Score:53
Arguments:42
Total Votes:57
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Good (23)
 
 Not good (19)

Debate Creator

NVYN(289) pic



Is democracy a good system?

Democracy is when all the people get to vote on decisions.  Is it a good system?  Why?

Good

Side Score: 29
VS.

Not good

Side Score: 24
3 points

Some kind of rule by the people has been shown pretty much unequivocally to be the fairest and most beneficial form of government.

I see no current or historical example that says otherwise.

Today all of the wealthiest, fairest, and most powerful nations are some form of democracy - excluding China, but while China is a world force, living conditions basically suck for the average citizen, and per capita they are poor as dirt.

Even looking back in history, the only semi fair and just government we know of was Rome during the Renaissance. It was not nearly as democratic as Western societies today, but we see clearly that the height of their power was when more of the power was held by the population. When the people decided again that representative government was too slow to act, and that a different form of government would be more advantageous, they went through a dark age and eventually Rome was no more.

There may be many nations that would be considered "successful" governments in the past that were not democratic, specifically Egypt and Persia come to mind. Unless though one was a member of their versions of an aristocracy, life was short and brutal. While the nations themselves were powerful, the vast majority of the people did not ever have the chance to enjoy this, quite the opposite in fact, most were miserable. It is the same, and has been for every non-democratic nation. I cannot think of a single example otherwise. If someone has one feel free to explain.

Here are what I perceive as the sources of frustration with rule by the people:

1. Distrust of people

2. Fear of people different from oneself

3. Slow change

It's important I think though that one take a more worldly view of what democratic nations have accomplished. It is pretty amazing historically speaking. There was a time when it was assumed leaders of any sort must be ordained by god, or must be related to gods, or in some way must be more than human. However as we have seen, rule for the people by the people has brought free nations a level of comfort, of health, wealth, and technology that would seem very much god-like to our ancestors.

It is not a coincidence that things like the industrial revolution never in our hundreds of thousands of years of history took place until the majority of the people were the masters (more or less) of their own destiny. That the level of self-understanding we have achieved did not come about until most people were mostly free. With more responsibility for governance redistributed to the people from the few who once historically ruled, we have seen people rise to the occasion and do amazing things.

To say that one of the non-democratic forms of government of the past or the present, is somehow better, is to ignore where we are today as humans compared to where we once were.

This is something very easy to ignore in a single human's short life. We're born and the roads are already there, we already have homes, we aren't slaves. It's pretty nice. It's easy to ignore and to become frustrated when the majority is not exactly who, or does not rule in the way, you would like.

But it should be remembered, that even if one's specific preferences are not the majority's preferences, or the rule of the land at a specific time, it is much better still than any alternative we have seen in history.

Of course it is not all sunshine and rainbows. Democracies make mistakes and are no more infallible as the false god-ordained rulers of nations in the past. The difference though is, over time we have seen that people as a whole are far fairer and are more able to correct their actions than a single individual or a small group.

It may at some point become tempting to believe that democracy does not work. That people are too dumb, that people are too lazy, that they cannot be trusted.

But if a group of people is afflicted with these negative characteristics, how much more so a small group of people, or an individual.

At the least, when people rule themselves and they are in the wrong, they can change. I've found individuals do not.

The three frustrations I listed are very real. It is hard to trust people who aren't like you. It's easy to be scared, that is the most natural human reaction. And when a democracy does decide they want to change, the time it takes a democracy to change is often maddening.

But it is better than the alternative.

Side: Good
NVYN(289) Disputed
3 points

You used Rome as an example of a successful democratic society and that at the pinnacle of their success they were most democratic. I would like to challenge the claim that Rome (and any other ancient societies for that matter) was ever a democratic society based on the following:

For democracies to exist, the people must rule either directly or through some form of representative government and can make changes to this representative group if they wanted to. For the people to exercise this power, they need timely and accurate information. Given the modern technologies available today, we're still struggling to get good information to the masses, so I doubt the people of the past had access to good information, if any at all. If information was available, accurate and timely, this would only be available to a very limited few. So in those days, when people were more superstitious than the average modern witch, when they were more prone to fears of the unknown, fears of attack and invasions, when the powerful were those with weapons and were more ambitious than the most powerful leaders today and human lives were nothing to them, who do you think were really running things? The scared little people with no information or those with weapons, great ambitions and a willingness to kill, scare and intimidate the masses using fear to rule them?

.

Today, by all standards, we're more "democratic", but are we really democratic, could democracy actually exist and does it actually work? The 3 sources of frustration noted by you are important considerations, but the following 2 factors are more real and important:

a) Information availability and

b) Ability to process information and make decisions.

A true democracy assumes rule by the people, but if the average citizen has no access to good information and the majority of them doesn't care for politics but rather what the girl/boy next door is doing, wouldn't know what to do with good information if it was available to them so we can't say that democracy is a good thing. At the end of the day, most decisions are made by our representatives, whose motives are as clear as mud to the public, whose morality are questionable and they relate to each other in a back-scratching culture that gives little to no consideration to the wishes of the masses, we can only hope that our leaders have good morals.

I actually attribute good living conditions of today to the:

- general advances in technologies that makes our lives more comfortable and

- the general increase in empathy and humanity in civilization.

.

I suppose a good alternative to true democracy is government by an elite group with the welfare of their people as first priority. Sometimes this system exists in our so-called representative democracies, but sometimes it doesn't.

Side: Not Good
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
3 points

Excellent point about Rome.

It should also be mentioned they had slaves, and the people were defined by class, it was hardly equal.

However for the time it was extraordinarily free by comparison.

And the rise and fall of Rome does coincide with the power shifting from the type of representative government they did have, back to being ruled by a dictator.

You're second point is also true. We are actually a Representative Republic, as are all of Western societies to my knowledge. As far as I know a true democracy has never existed.

And I'm not sure if it could because of the points you made. Perhaps a Representative Republic is better.

Your fourth paragraph under points a) and b) though I do have to disagree with to an extent.

Now generally I do agree that people are kind of dopey, and that most politicians have ulterior motives. However, at least if the politicians depend on the dopey people for their job, the dopey people at some point will figure out what is in their best interest. Every alternative I can think of takes the dopey people out of the equation. Then what has been gained? You still have people in power who may or may not have ulterior motives, yet now they are not beholden at all to the public.

Your next two points I agree with completely. Technology and empathy are the primary and direct reasons for better living conditions in general in Western societies today as compared to the past.

However my point is that these would not exist, either one, to the extent they do today I believe, if people did not feel at least that they had some control over their collective destinies.

Without getting too far into it, but empathy for example is a product of the human mind developed through evolution because we are too week a creature to fight off the lions and tigers and bears one on one. As you know, the process of developing things like empathy generation after generation is a very long one. If this were a reason separate from the basic freedoms afforded in a democratic society, it seems it would have existed to a greater extent say in the dark ages.

As for your last paragraph. Yes it could work, or it could go horribly wrong. I trust though a small group of representatives who are beholden to the people more than I trust a small group of rulers who are not I guess would be my ultimate argument there.

Very good reply. Upvote even though I disagree.

Side: Good
2 points

Here are what I perceive as the sources of frustration with rule by the people:

1. Distrust of people

2. Fear of people different from oneself

3. Slow change

You should also add Mass Media and opinion making to the list. I think democracy works better when citizens are allowed time to think, learn, and reflect upon their interests but the last century seems to show a path towards bombardment of misinformation, trivialities, and red herring issues designed to take attention away from important decisions.

It's almost as if, and pardon the poor metaphor, mass media has become a form of signal jamming technology with the (intentional?) effect of making voters distrustful of academic authorities and consequently more suggestible by unscrupulous campaign advertisements and issues.

Side: Good
1 point

Hm,

I don't know. It's a good point. Do you think Mass Media does more harm than good?

I do see your point, that with mass media it is far easier to control the opinions of the population, and to distract them etc. I think we agree that is going on to an extent today.

And certainly it would be more beneficial for people to take the time to think of issues, as opposed to the quickfire brainwashing we are subjected to on pundit-news tv.

I don't know though.

On the other hand what mass media can do is bring issues to the forefront that many would have never even considered in the past.

I'm actually for the fairness docrine in the media, perhaps that is a good solution. It may mean sacrificing some of my favorite programs on MSNBC, but it would be more than worth it when it would doubtless and inevitably muzzle Faux.

I honestly am on the fence whether mass media is good or bad.

Side: Good
1 point

Yes, it is a good system because it ensures that the Government will meet the expectations of the most people possible. The rights of the people should be met under a democratic system more than monarchic system. People will look out for their own good... so if government policy is determined by the people then the most people should get what the want.

Side: Good
1 point

Democracy is a good system if what is subjected to democratic rule also is what holds most of the power in any given society. A society where an increasing amount of power is transferred from the democratic system to, for example, corporations, the democratic system becomes increasingly meaningless.

Side: Good
1 point

It's good to a point. I think that sometimes it lets in some really crazy people that I personally don't want choosing my leaders for me.

Side: Good

Democracy is good as long as everyone is treated equally and the Government is non-violent and inclusive of all.

Side: Good
-1 points

what do you suggest??? do you want royalty? how about a tyranny?? or even better.. communism like cuba??? stop complaining or leave our country.. seriously!!

Side: Good
NVYN(289) Disputed
1 point

This is simply a discussion about whether or not democracy is a good system... The pros and cons. It doesn't have to be a complaint at all. In fact, it's not.

.

You think democracy is a good system, please point out the pros.

Side: Not Good
iLikeApples(6) Disputed
1 point

Well, one good thing about democracy is that people wouldn't kick down my door and drag me to secret facilities to be tortured and/or killed if I said "I don't like democracy". Unless someone has evidence that says that this is going on, and is going on more than Totalitarianism, or a Monarchy.

Side: Good
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

cuba isn't a communist society from my understanding. I havn't done much research but i have a feeling i don't need to.

Side: Not Good
2 points

Cuba is a Socialist Republic and is ruled by a dictatorial regime. It is a communist country. It was the second largest prison for journalists in 2008 (second only to China) and is well known for its human rights abuses. The US should go in there and free the people there, except it'll get nothing in return for its troubles... so why bother?

Side: Not Good
3 points

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

Side: Not Good
1 point

The condition required for democracy to be a good system is that everyone are informed on the issue they vote on. The truth of the matter is, not everyone are informed. Only a minority hold the information. So democracy is kinda like an illusion...

Side: Not Good
wikoff12(1) Disputed
1 point

I do think some clarification is in order.

First of all, we need to distinguish (at least) between direct democracy and representative democracy.

In the headline of this debate it reads:

Democracy is when all the people get to vote on decisions.

This is more in line with direct democracy. So maybe the question should be along the lines of " Would the US be more successful as representative democracy (which we currently are) or direct democracy?"

Today, the truest and only direct democracy is Switzerland. Direct Democracy is a system of democracy giving citizens an extraodinary amount of participation in the legislation process. However, it is not as clear cut as it sounds, nonetheless, the citizens do have a voice, but this can be a slow process. E.g. universal suffrage (even though it was already a direct democracy) in Switzerland was not achieved until 1971! and it had been off and on the table since 1874. 1971: 621,109 (66%) yes vs. 323,882 (34%) no. (other times it went to vote with no clear majority)

That aside, I can see both sides to the representative vs. direct democracy debate.

PRO REP/ ANTI DIRECT

Here you have the idea that heavily influenced our founders. Plato believed that direct democracy encourages bad leadership… “popular lead is devoid of true knowledge.”

Lawrence K Grossman’s book, author of The Electronic Republic, agreed with Plato that there is reason for us to fear “too much democracy.” We need experts with the experience and educational background to deal with the issues that face us.

Grossman writes: “Ordinary people do not have the time or the inclination to delve into details of healthcare reform and crime legislation, or become informed about our trade imbalance or Middle East diplomacy. As much as we would like to believe that the people themselves are best qualified to judge what is in their self-interest, the reality is that informed specialists are more likely to make sound judgments. Democracy needs a governing elite” (12).

Generally, the classical argument against direct (or pure) democracy is:

“the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves.”

PRO DIRECT

One of the most beautiful things about direct democracy is that it does encourage dialogue and deliberation and deliberation gives peoples a sense of responsibility and heightened interest in the issues. (like what is happening right here with all of us) Any form of direct democracy would be dependent on an aware public. Many theorists see public deliberation as inseparable from the concept of democracy.

“Deliberative politics is not the ideal politics; it is the necessary politics of democracy.”

David Mathews, Politics for the People (1994)

Moreover, it improves the quality of democracy and legitimizes it:

“ Serious public discourse is the seedbed, the wellspring, of democratic politics because the public is the only legitimate body that can define the public’s interests. The quality of democracy depends on this kind of public talk. Changing the quality of public dialogue begins to change politics” (Mathews)

Lastly, Mathews writes:

“…without deliberation, people are just people, a collection of individuals, inhabitants, not a public. They have no connection or relationship to one another. Without becoming citizens capable of giving common direction to the government, people are capable of being little more than consumers of government services.”

Side: direct vs representative

Democracy allows for the tyranny of the majority.

People can be informed, it is not a necessary fact that they are not; the methods of the society would just need to be such that it is difficult not to be, instead of the other way around.

Side: there are better systems
1 point

How can you keep society informed?

Say there's a group of terrorist somewhere planning to blow up something. How do you inform people? How would they be able to verify this fact? In other words, how can everyone in society be sure that you're not making this up?

Side: Not Good
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

people in a democracy don't act as the executive branch; thats information they don't need to know. It is impossible for some one to know everything. People in a democracy act as the legislative branch of government and staying inform on relative topics is possible through networking, education and openness of data and data analysis tools. They only need to have enough verification of a threat to allow the executive branch to handle the threat by making a law allowing it to. they don't need to know that there is this specific group of people bla bla bla... only that groups like the specific terrorist group is generally possible and need to be accounted for by allowing the executive branch to act on reasonably attained information(set up a standard/law specifying what information is reasonably attained and likely trustworthy). the sharing of that information can be allowed to be limited, although after the operation it should be publicly available for review so the effectiveness of the laws and standards the executive branch is operating under can be looked at and improved.

Side: there are better systems
1 point

What system is better than democracy?-------------------------

Side: Good
NVYN(289) Disputed
1 point

A system whereby all voters are informed so people in government can't lie.

.

A system whereby our leaders are those whose popularity was gained by superior moral judgement and ethical behaviors instead of acting skills.

Side: Not Good
nthdegreeman(39) Disputed
1 point

A Republic Democracy was founded by the U.S.A. Constitution for the people, by the people. At its heart is the right to vote for a representative who then in turn votes or legislates on law. Essentially, this form of government is based on the rule of "law" while balanced by the rule of democracy (vote). States rights include the ability to have referendums (populace voting) for specific laws or amendments to State laws (Statutory). A pure democracy at a Federal government level has proven to be problematic over time as in the case history of early Greek government preceding the Roman Republicanism era. Imagine in democracy's purest form, a country where we vote on every issue as a nation, with or against laws based purely on a vote as opposed to elemental principles based on law?

Side: Not Good
1 point

Nope.

If it was a game of truth - then maybe.

But it's a game where the better con artist wins. And they spend enough money to erase the national debt.

There's better out there. Monarcys are just one. Feudal maybe. List goes on.

Side: there are better systems