2006-08-31 13:11:12 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
thank you, people, i wasn't aware of any semantic difference.
2006-08-31 13:28:27 · update #1
Not even close. It is sometimes hard to believe there are people who have no idea of what a democracy is.
Perhaps it is time to let those people live in ignorance and oppression. They will eventually have to fight their own government to obtain the rights that come with a democracy. Maybe then they will understand and appreciate it.
2006-08-31 13:18:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the main difference is that the concept of democracy we tend to think is democracy is 'liberal democracy' which has well known rules with some variations.
On the other hand, while anarchy is also characterised by decisions made by the people, the way these decisions is arrived at and the type of social and economic structures are not fixed. Most people think of anarchy as lawlessness and strife, chaos... This need not be the case.
If anarchy gets organised in such a way that everyone can voice his/her opinion and debate takes place until a solution is arrived at, this is direct democracy, like they were supposed to have had in Athens long long ago.
If however, there is less direct participation, and leaders are chosen to represent the people, and these leaders debate and make the decisions, we have representative democracy.
Finally, if the leaders are chosen by a specific way (for example voting) and these choices are made at a regular time period, then it is close to a liberal democracy.
So I would say yes, democracy is a version of anarchy. But whether it is cute or not, I am not so sure.
In practise, what we have in most countries is closer to oligarchy than democracy. Power is concentrated in the hands of very few people.
2006-08-31 13:50:10 · answer #2 · answered by ekonomix 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question! Anarchy and pure democracy are closer related than most people think. Pure democracy, which is essentially rule by the most numerous, leads to anarchy. Anarchy, however, is not a system of government because it is impossible to be maintained for any real length of time, and never even reaches close to a stable system. Rather it is a transition between democracy and tyranny, where, upon the collapse of the democracy due to inevitable infighting and insurrections, a strong capable leader emerges from the chaos and unites the country, usually under a strong dictatorship.
2006-08-31 13:30:52 · answer #3 · answered by Benrig 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I ever get to see a democracy that works, I'll be able to judge. Democracy, like Communism are ideals which cannot work in reality due to the greed for power of influencial people. Corruption in some form or another alwasy prevents the ideal.
2006-08-31 13:30:54 · answer #4 · answered by Phil J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's a very controlled cute version of theft. The rich politicians and their big fat cat friends are the ones who benefit. Anarchy, like the French Revolution, benefitted the poor temporarily until the rich regained control again.
2006-08-31 13:16:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What is democracy anyway? Basically it was once defined as 'mob rule' in ancient Greece. What we have is polity, the closest thing one can get to perfect, but it is still imperfect.
So the answer might be yes, if indeed we had democracy.
2006-08-31 13:17:28 · answer #6 · answered by tiko 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Anarchy is defined by the complete lack of organization. Democracy certainly has organization.
2006-08-31 13:16:03 · answer #7 · answered by Sordenhiemer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only in a democracies end of days!
2006-08-31 13:15:00 · answer #8 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on if it's the real thing. Anarchy has a measure of structure like tribalism. You probably mean bedlam.
2006-08-31 13:28:35 · answer #9 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very different kettle of fish.
2006-08-31 13:23:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋