Is democracy truly a universal human goal?

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

That is to say, are all societies, regardless of cultural differences, striving and ultimately evolving towards democracy as a system of social organization? Another way to ask this: is democracy a highly beneficial and feasible political system for all groups of people?

Indian economist Amartya Sen once debated this with Samuel Huntington, famous for his highly controversial 'Clash of Civilizations' essay which got him rejected from the US National Academy of Sciences. I must say, I felt Sen was rather weak and idealistic in his arguments. I couldn't stop thinking that Sen has the unusual perspective of a highly successful member of one of the first and most successful non-Westen democracies. Not that there aren't problems and incorrect assumptions in Huntington's view of the world, but overall I think Huntington made a good case for democracy being an essentially Westen cultural institution, that really is only a feasible goal for societies that are either Western or thoroughly indoctrinated with Western values, and that democracy-as-universal-goal is something Westerners have been indoctrinated into by military-industrial-bureaucratic complexes hellbent on world domination.

I think if you look at history, you'll find quite a number of examples of wealthy, successful societies that were (for their time) exemplary in terms of equality and/or human rights, that were decidedly something other than democratic.

For example, really none of the wealthy and up-and-coming Asian countries are true democracies, in the Western sense. They've all been dominated by a single political party for decades. Furthermore, social sanctions on behavior trump constitutionally-granted rights in these countries any day. It's very easy to grant rights to people that you're certain no one will ever exercise, for cultural and social reasons. These societies have a thin decoration of democracy, which remains because no one uses it to its full extent, and does a lot for looking good in the eyes of the West. You could say they have a system that works BETTER THAN democracy, at least at the big group level, and at least for them.

Any thoughts?

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

Plato considered Democracy one level above tyranny, mob rule.

I agree. Plato's ideal Republic was ruled by an aristocracy who was NOT allowed to have money!

I think a benevolant, charismatic dictator, with scientists/experts for advisors and occasional plebisites of the people would be the best form of government.

Democrazy doesn't work 'cause the people (voters) are soooo stupid! Plus, the elections/selections are rigged. CIA has ruled America since Kennedy was killed. (Haven't figured how Clinton was involved in CIA except maybe with running coke into Arkansas. Clinton was also a Rhodes Scholar, schooled to benefit the plutocrats.

 

[yougene]

That is to say, are all societies, regardless of cultural differences, striving and ultimately evolving towards democracy as a system of social organization? Another way to ask this: is democracy a highly beneficial and feasible political system for all groups of people?

As it stands now, no, most countries could not currently survive as democracies.

Indian economist Amartya Sen once debated this with Samuel Huntington, famous for his highly controversial 'Clash of Civilizations' essay which got him rejected from the US National Academy of Sciences. I must say, I felt Sen was rather weak and idealistic in his arguments. I couldn't stop thinking that Sen has the unusual perspective of a highly successful member of one of the first and most successful non-Westen democracies. Not that there aren't problems and incorrect assumptions in Huntington's view of the world, but overall I think Huntington made a good case for democracy being an essentially Westen cultural institution, that really is only a feasible goal for societies that are either Western or thoroughly indoctrinated with Western values, and that democracy-as-universal-goal is something Westerners have been indoctrinated into by military-industrial-bureaucratic complexes hellbent on world domination.

Democracy as it is now, is ultimately a product of the Enlightenment era. Yes that is a specific part of Western history, but it represents a cognitive shift that isn't defined by cultural context. It's a shift of the everyday man from traditional values, to autonomous rational thought. This isn't something that has happened yet in China or most 3rd world countries.

Democracy as we usually encounter it is heavily shrowded in cultural ideals, but the structural organization seems to be derivative of structures we see in nature( or rather a RATIONAL person sees in nature ). That's not something unique to western culture.

This is why most countries could not survive as democracies. Democracies are rationally derivative institutions, and require the input and participation from rational people.

For example, really none of the wealthy and up-and-coming Asian countries are true democracies, in the Western sense. They've all been dominated by a single political party for decades. Furthermore, social sanctions on behavior trump constitutionally-granted rights in these countries any day. It's very easy to grant rights to people that you're certain no one will ever exercise, for cultural and social reasons. These societies have a thin decoration of democracy, which remains because no one uses it to its full extent, and does a lot for looking good in the eyes of the West. You could say they have a system that works BETTER THAN democracy, at least at the big group level, and at least for them.

Any thoughts?

Most of the asian countries still inhabit a traditional perspective. What we are seeing are strains of rational and post-rational thought popping up in these countries and permeating the institutions. Once the populations world-view evolves( Which is inevitable ) so will the correlating institutions( and the structures of democracy will mostly already be there waiting for them ).

 

[Danguba]

Democrazy doesn't work 'cause the people (voters) are soooo stupid! Plus, the elections/selections are rigged. CIA has ruled America since Kennedy was killed. (Haven't figured how Clinton was involved in CIA except maybe with running coke into Arkansas. Clinton was also a Rhodes Scholar, schooled to benefit the plutocrats.

And before Kennedy was killed, everything was just great huh? I mean, the only reason he's thought of as a great leader is because he was shot and because he used some flowery rhetoric on world peace, but one should just look at what mess his administration made out of Indochina and how brilliantly he handled Cuban Missile Crisis. If CIA indeed killed him, they def. did world a favor by ridding it of that steroid fueled egomaniac.

 

[ebola?]

The short answer is that we would have to ask the people involved if they would value such a system and why or shy not.

I also think that democratic self-management has never been realized on a large scale and unfortunately might not even be possible in modern societies (As an anarchist, though, I hope that it is!). Representative democracy, especially when coupled with a hierarchical economic system, boils down to behind the scenes oligarchical tyranny.

I think that Huntington is a bit blinded by his...well, downright fetishization of political stability. For him, the presence of a coherently functioning political system is the ultimate goal, regardless of what that system functions towards.

ebola

 

[eEz]

And before Kennedy was killed, everything was just great huh? I mean, the only reason he's thought of as a great leader is because he was shot and because he used some flowery rhetoric on world peace, but one should just look at what mess his administration made out of Indochina and how brilliantly he handled Cuban Missile Crisis. If CIA indeed killed him, they def. did world a favor by ridding it of that steroid fueled egomaniac.

I dont agree. Kennedy spoke out publicly against the banking systems that rule our world behind the governments we are told run the show. He tried to make it common knowledge, and in that sense he tried to do more for the freedoms of the average person in this world than any leader has since the central banking systems were created. and for that he was killed. Kennedy didnt make a mess, he didnt have the power to make a mess, a mess was made on his behalf to discredit him, he got there and realised he had no power to do anything whatsoever.

In answer to the question in the title of this thread, no, of course not.

 

[yougene]

I also think that democratic self-management has never been realized on a large scale and unfortunately might not even be possible in modern societies (As an anarchist, though, I hope that it is!).

Could you elaborate on this? It seems to me that large scale democracy is more possible the more things progress, not the other way around.

Representative democracy, especially when coupled with a hierarchical economic system, boils down to behind the scenes oligarchical tyranny.

Do you think this Is a generality that applies to all such systems, or just the relatively few that we have seen so far in the relatively short span of 2000 years?

 

[blitzsturm]

Democracy (the order of liberalism) leads to a world that is overpopulated, where people have power because they can yell the most or have money. Democracy has pushed the world and the environment to its limits. Democracy has soon destroyed all life on earth.
Democracy and liberalism is death

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^^^ What do you propose as an alternative?

 

[Robot J]

wow, some of the things you guys come up with...

democracy works when the whole population is involved in the process. example, look at the voter turnout in america (around 50%, pretty shameful) and then the quality of life in america. the quality of life varies depending on what social bracket you're born into, but it's pretty low for the average middle-class american. now look at the voter turnout in western european countries (france is like in the 80 percentile range, and scandinavian countries are even higher!) and look at their quality of life. they have more rights and more benefits BECAUSE THEY PARTICIPATE IN THEIR GOVERNMENT, thus they (the general population) usually get what they want.

the education of said population is pretty important too. for the sake of being brief, most developed european countries have better educated citizens (on average) than here in america. they even have laws against electing business men and such into office!

i've used two examples of democracy which are in fact quite radically different, yet still democracies (although i'm quite hesitant to call america a "true" democracy). i think it's an inadvertant americentric view that many here are taking to associate democracy with only america. there are plenty of other countries (even second and third world) which successfully (and sometimes unsuccessfully) practice democracy. i'm not here to champion democracy as the best and only form of government. it's very important to note that different things work in different cultures/countries. do i believe democracy is universal? short answer, no. different strokes for different folks.

 

[MDPVagrant]

Democracy (the order of liberalism) leads to a world that is overpopulated, where people have power because they can yell the most or have money. Democracy has pushed the world and the environment to its limits. Democracy has soon destroyed all life on earth.
Democracy and liberalism is death

Utter crap. And why lump "liberalism" in with democracy... to me it means open-mindedness, lack of clinging to the past (rethugs are clearly terrified of change) and willingness to try new things on a regular basis.

P.S. I suppose you like the non-liberal, non-democratic systems in place in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, then?

 

[B9]

In a word...NO



& as to Plato....brilliant IMO.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

MDPVagrant, that's true. Democracy is a system of power management. Liberalism is a social philosophy.

Your post reminds me of Japan's immortal Liberal Democratic Party: not liberal, not democratic, and far more than a party.

 

[PsyGhost]

We carry the torch of democracy like imperial britain carried the torch of cultural superiority.

A means of confusion and domination. We live in a totalitarian democracy. We perceive that we are free, when we are not. Only slaves to consumption. Slaves with fancy items are still slaves.

 

[B9]

^+23

 

[jpgrdnr]

Is there a timeline to the question? It sounds like the original intent was commenting on modernity. Historically, this obviously isn't true - many cultures existed for hundreds of years or more without any movement towards democracy. So I guess I agree with MDAO. To some degree, I don't automatically make the jump that equality/human rights is necessary for a "successful" social order.

It depends on what the political circumstances are and what serves best to promote order. Without order there isn't anything resembling a system, ie: anarchy.

I think in hindsight, one of the "uses" for a system such as in 1984, provides stability in a situation that really is quite terrible (giving an illusion of war to create fear). Ignorance is strength, because you don't really want to know how bad things are. In that instance, would democracy be "better"?

The trick with democracy is that its only as good as the people running it. Tyranny may be better served in certain situations. I don't think there is any collective social
movement one way or the other, that's revolution. And the outcome of that isn't set in stone.

 

[Consciously Insane]

America isn't a democracy.

 

[Robot J]

The trick with democracy is that its only as good as the people running it. Tyranny may be better served in certain situations.

you just summed up my post in the simplest terms.

 

[satricion]

First of all the idea that democracies function on the input of rational people is basically an Enlightenment fiction...rationality in politics, defined by the idea that people will pursue the goals that are objectively best for themselves, is a myth. Political systems of all kinds rest on a bedrock of power and ideology that legitimises them. Liberal democracy (and capitalism, the two have gone hand in hand in the West) are legitimised by the fiction of rationality in politics. Plato's views are legitimised by the fiction of objective, value free knowledge about society. Both social models are ultimately systems of domination.

History illustrates this. Societies have changed according to the needs of the powerful, and ideologies (models of the good, human nature, etc) have changed to legitimise the structural conditions under which people live. The Enlightenment, with the rise of capitalism and the modern bourgeoisie along with the corresponding rise of rationality, is a perfect example of this.

The idea that all societies are somehow destined to move towards 'democracy' is teleological and false. There is no objective linear progressive template for social change, and to argue that the objectively existing goal of all societies is to become more like the West is imperialistic and incorrect.

 

[yougene]

First of all the idea that democracies function on the input of rational people is basically an Enlightenment fiction...rationality in politics, defined by the idea that people will pursue the goals that are objectively best for themselves, is a myth.

Not a myth, a partial truth.

Political systems of all kinds rest on a bedrock of power and ideology that legitimises them. Liberal democracy (and capitalism, the two have gone hand in hand in the West) are legitimised by the fiction of rationality in politics. Plato's views are legitimised by the fiction of objective, value free knowledge about society. Both social models are ultimately systems of domination.

Yeah, power structures are legitimised by ideology and values, but that isn't to say that ideology and values solely come from those in power( in fact it goes both ways ).

The idea that all societies are somehow destined to move towards 'democracy' is teleological and false. There is no objective linear progressive template for social change, and to argue that the objectively existing goal of all societies is to become more like the West is imperialistic and incorrect.

There is no objective linear template for social change. But there is one for individual change. People progress through the same sequence of changes ( Gebser, Piaget, Cook-Greuter, Beck ) regardless of their cultural context. The Enlightenment represented a massive shift towards formal-operational cognition in a large group of people. There are certain values that are intertwined with having a rational world-view, a big one being value of the rational individual.

If such a massive shift occurs in another culture, democracy isn't a given outcome( They could come up with something unique to their culture that also represents values of the rational world-view ), but it is a likely one.