Is democracy truly a universal human goal?

[srinoe]

In Buthan, the king has based the development on the Gross national hapiness (instead to GNP). I guess there is an other answer than our democraty to have an happy society.

 

[mulberryman]

Well I'm sure not everyone in Bhutan is happy, but that is what's important to any government that wished to remain in power, that a majority of the people are happy and satisfied with the way things are being run. Very democratic, I must say!

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

In Buthan, ...

In a response to accusations in 1987 by a journalist from UK's Financial Times that the pace of development in Bhutan was slow, the King said that "Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product."[9] This statement appears to have presaged recent findings by western economic psychologists, including 2002 Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, that question the link between levels of income and happiness. The statement signaled his commitment to building an economy that is appropriate for Bhutan's unique culture, based on Buddhist spiritual values, and has served as a unifying vision for the economy. Whilst no trend data is available yet, the policy seems to be reaping the desired results. In a survey in 2005, 45% of Bhutanese reported being very happy, 52% reported being happy and only 3% reported not being happy. Compare that, for example, with the USA, where only 30% report being very happy, 58% being pretty happy and 12% were not too happy (based on data from the General Social Survey). Based on this data, the Happy Planet Index estimates that the average level of life satisfaction in Bhutan is within the top 10% of nations worldwide, and certainly higher than other nations with similar levels of GDP per capita.

hehehe, thats nice

 

[blitzsturm]

EDIT: forget it...

 

[Slay]

oh 3 pages and im not good at posting serious shit so here is a short answer:
NO

 

[B9]

Well I'm sure not everyone in Bhutan is happy

Neither am I - but they seem fairly contented as a rule, can't recall the last war they were involved in or any "marxist" liberation groups pillaging around the countryside either which, given the nature of the region, might suggest they aren't that discontented.

 

[Roger&Me]

I think the answer to this question is self-evident: if it was a universal human goal, then how come human beings have been around for so long, and democracy is, comparatively, so new? If it were a universal goal, would humans everywhere not be angered to the point of revolt at the idea of having to live without it?

 

[Jamshyd]

There is way too much said in this thread for me to reply to, so I'll simply state my own opinion: Democracy, even in its most ideal form, is definitely not something all humans strive for.

Some cultures do better with authoritarianism than they do with democracy. The monarch will frequently serve a purpose similar to that of religion: to give people a more meaningful existence. The removal of the monarch will leave people astray.

Also, speaking of Monarchs, these figures have historically come to power through various ways, but one prominent way was to unite several warring units. The Monarch therefore represents the unity of people who are essentially all different.

A modern example of how authoritarianism proved to be a better choice: Iraq.

 

[neonads]

I'm going against the grain here and will say yes.

Autocratic rulers are seen to have more freedom in their actions but they have limited resources, fractitious societies, and neighbours willing to transgress at the first sign of weakness. They rule by force to gather the resources required to exhibit strength so as not to invite attack. Often, the people they rule prefer this because they lack the education/belief to know otherwise, or there is too little local law to ensure equality.

Monarchs in the feudal age did not have a great deal of power. They relied on alliances with selfish nobles and played a dangerous game of deception with them to maintain power. They couldn't just act on a whim, or increase their personal wealth without consulting or deceiving their allies. Classical emperors also had these limitations. I would say that the most "free to act" autocrats are those who rule the smallest groups and that freedom to act diminishes as the group size increases.

I think that given the right conditions, most people would rather compete against each other in a wits/intelligence/effort contest over a coercive/violent one. We are social animals and naturally form tribes to better our survival chances, and we are intelligent and empathic enough to want equality for all of our tribe. We, like other animals, only fight when cornered, when the perceived threat is too great to remove with displays of strength.

 

[Cthulhu]

The only universal human goals are attainment of happiness and avoidance of suffering. Democracy can facilitate the achievement of these goals, but certainly not in all circumstances.

And actually, there are some misconceptions fundamental to many people's understanding of democracy - such as "everyone is equal" (we certainly aren't, everyone is different, duality exists just look at men and women, men cannot give birth); or, "we are inherently free, with natural rights" (certainly not, we are bound by constraints that exists as long as we are human, and give us one
freedom and you will have to take away another to allow it, case in point trading our right to self-govern for a government that will protect us but also set laws limiting our actions, not always favorably).

 

[Cthulhu]

I'm going against the grain here and will say yes.

Autocratic rulers are seen to have more freedom in their actions but they have limited resources, fractitious societies, and neighbours willing to transgress at the first sign of weakness. They rule by force to gather the resources required to exhibit strength so as not to invite attack. Often, the people they rule prefer this because they lack the education/belief to know otherwise, or there is too little local law to ensure equality.

Monarchs in the feudal age did not have a great deal of power. They relied on alliances with selfish nobles and played a dangerous game of deception with them to maintain power. They couldn't just act on a whim, or increase their personal wealth without consulting or deceiving their allies. Classical emperors also had these limitations. I would say that the most "free to act" autocrats are those who rule the smallest groups and that freedom to act diminishes as the group size increases.

I think that given the right conditions, most people would rather compete against each other in a wits/intelligence/effort contest over a coercive/violent one. We are social animals and naturally form tribes to better our survival chances, and we are intelligent and empathic enough to want equality for all of our tribe. We, like other animals, only fight when cornered, when the perceived threat is too great to remove with displays of strength.

Yes the system of autocracy is very flawed, but this means that democracy is thus the only option? Consider aristocracies, they are semi-democratic in that they take power away from a sole unreliable owner and spread it out among many of the "elite." Perhaps if we consider this term "elite" in the most practical sense, as "those who are most fit to make decisions," we could form a government in which those who govern are the wisest and most fit to govern. Meanwhile, current democracies allow for the suffrage of all who give five minutes of their time - is this really a good minimum standard to base the ruling of nations on?

 

[neonads]

The aristocratic (oligarchic) system is already in place within autocracies and republics alike in the form of military top-brass and corporate tycoons. The creation of new social strata only acts to shield those in power from the scrutiny of the rest. This leads to misconceptions in the public over the causes of instability and thus removes the fuel to effect positive change. Elected leaders should have to put *all* of their personal possessions into the treasury and only receive them back if they generated a surplus or break-even, they could even take a small percentage of the surplus as an incentive (fixed taxes of course!). Any losses should come out of their assets first, then the treasury's. They should submit to having *all* of their financial information available to the public for a set time (perhaps life) after office to prevent corruption. They should be banned from using cash for this period. All cases of fraud should result in state confiscation of all assets. This will attract the right kind of leaders who work for the people instead of the oligarchy.

 

[endlesseulogy]

America isn't a democracy.

Agreed. but then again, does democracy really exist today?

Definition : "Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and either exercised directly by citizens or through their elected representatives." - Wikipedia.

Firstly, I think it's important to realise we live in a globalised world. Having the ability to choose elected officials in government positions is well and good but there is no point in this process if elected officials don't have any power. I think this point is important food for thought. It is a well known fact that since many Western Democracies deregulated their foreign exchange markets power has been handed over to institutions that don't run on citizen's democratic principals. Ordinary citizens have no role in electing officials that control banks or powerful corporations; which have a large stake in running the world. So, really, does democracy really do anyway? Hmmm. It seems to me that democracy is a trade-off between poitically correct idealism and retaining the desire of many people to be controlled.

Wooo! Democracy!! Choice of two political parties!! Woo! real variety here!! Woo!! Gosh, we so dumb! We get to choose between a party that will control us a little and.. am... a party that will control us a little bit more! Woo!

 

[Wayne Gale]

I somehow doubt the human goal is to go along with what over half the population can come to agree on when presented with a few options. Power is there only for those willing to take it.

 

[Jamshyd]

Neo: your judgement seems to be completely based on power, though. A monarch's importance as a social institution is through what he represents, not his actual authority - hence the existence of constitutional monarchies.

For example, I lived in Jordan, Japan, and now Thailand, and in all three, speaking ill or otherwise criticizing the monarch is amongst the most serious crimes. The most striking one is Japan: people still act today as if they live in a feudal society, with a proverbial sword at ever Jap's neck.

Even in Canadian law, the very first clauses in the Criminal Code deal with Crimes against Her Majesty (don't get me started on Canadian ass licking )

Societies that depend on a Monarch's symbolic unifying power will tend to feel "castrated" should the monarch be removed.

Of course, I am not saying that Monarchy is the universal ruling system - but rather making the point that Democracy is not. I believe that any political system, in its most ideal, will ultimately serve the same purpose.

 

[Jamshyd]

I'd like to revive this. I'm very interested in the discussion.

Now more than ever, I am convinced that some societies simply enjoy Monarchy too much to allow for democracy.

 

[Noodle]

No.

Power is a universal human goal.

 

[ebola?]

I believe that any political system, in its most ideal, will ultimately serve the same purpose.

I tend to concur. And history has shown them to have remarkably similar failings when practiced un-ideally.
...
I tend to think that democracy is not universally desired because of various cultural contingencies.
1. Democracy depends on the myth of 'bourgeois' man and the practice of this myth. The individual who benefits from democracy is atomized, free to choose and enter contractual relationships of exchange, has the goal of maximizing personal utility through choice, etc. Not everyone approaches human beings like this.
2. This is not to say that cultures exert a single, homogeneous effect on democracy. For example, some contend that Islam is incompatible with democracy (only dipshits like Samuel Huntington). However, if we look to SE Asia and other non Middle-Eastern Muslim majority states, we actually see MORE democracy than we'd expect of societies with similar wealth. Within the Qu'ran (sp?), various pro-democratic and anti-democratic interpretations may be extracted. Similarly, early Protestantism demonstrates that 'the West' is bubbling with anti-democratic sentiment too.

ebola

ebola

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

I am convinced that some societies simply enjoy Monarchy too much to allow for democracy.

I' rather have "Monarchy" or Aristocracy if the head of state was surrounded by scientists. Plato correctly said, "Democrazy is one level above tyranny." It's mob rule and there's soo many stupid voters out there . . . look at the ppl that attend Palin's rallys.

IMO: the U$A should abolish the 50-state legislatures, and send home all the US Senators and Congress-people.

 

[The Is]

no. love? probably. Democracy? Abs. not.