What is Democracy?

Question

Question asked by Johnny in Dalton Trumbo's movie "Johnny Got His Gun."

Johnny's Dad's answer was "It has something to do with young men killing each other, I believe."

Do you agree? Any wider interpretation of the word?

Answer 1

The word democracy has become ubiquitous. It is used to justify everything from regime change to parking meters, while the internet is drenched with talk of e-democracy, open democracy, local democracy, consensus democracy, liberal democracy, illiberal democracy.
We take the term from ancient Athens, but Athenian democracy, the product of an age remembered as egalitarian and high-minded, bore almost no resemblance to ours. While the free citizens of Athens benefited from being able to participate in the political process, their bold experiment was enabled by an economy powered by slavery, an expansionist and aggressive foreign policy, and a society - the first in history - in which women wore the veil.
So what is democracy? Is it really the wellspring of liberty and freedom that we hold it to be?
What does it mean to have democratic process in a country the size of Britain – or the USA, or India? Can tens or even hundreds of millions of people really be involved in the political process? Or is democracy less about actual involvement, and more about creating a culture of possibility and responsibility?
Or is ‘democracy’ just a cloak worn by the ruling elite, and are we more like the ancient Athenians – the real ancient Athenians – than we like to think?
In its purest meaning, of course, democracy means a people's voting directly to determine what direction a state or institution takes.

One person-one vote is a cornerstone of modern democracy. It has both positive and negative implications.

On the positive side, there is a clear rule for determining matters, and it is a rule which everyone in society has an interest to defend.

On the negative side, it means authority, in the sense of expertise, plays very little role in matters where expertise often is important.

The broader the definition of the franchise in a modern democracy, the more it includes those with little education, low understanding, highly emotional natures, and even the mentally unbalanced. On the other hand, if you restrict the franchise to exclude people in prison or ex-convicts or other groups – as it is restricted in the U.S. – there is a clear sense of unfairness concerning the one person-one vote principle.

Democracy has other implications, such as social democracy, where non-political institutions also reflect the principle of one person-one vote.

The first seeds of the idea of one person-one vote came out of Puritan and other Christian fundamentalist beliefs that all people (they would have said: men) are equal before God.

It is interesting that fundamentalist Christians played this historical role, helping bring down old oligarchies, because where they gained power themselves, they generally behaved badly, having little or no tolerance for other religions or even interpretations of Christianity.

Well, Lord Acton said it very well, didn't he?

Most so-called democracies today are really forms of republics, generally what we call Burkean democracies in which elected representatives are given the authority to make important decisions, following their own principles and with the time to carefully consider matters.

In practice today, this seems to be reduced in Western countries to following polls very closely and the representatives adjusting (some would say, shifting) their 'positions' constantly in response to these polls.

This modern practice reflects two key developments. One is political parties which barely existed in the mid-18th century, but today totally dominate politics in all advanced countries.

The parties generally behave as oligopolies do in the economic sphere, two or three large multi-corporations filling your grocery store shelves in many product areas with almost every brand seen.

Effectively, most Western states only have two or three parties, other insignificant ones filling little niches, much like narrow-interest specialty products on the store shelves.

The two or three, and it is mostly two, parties hold their positions the same way economic oligopolies do, that is by practices economists call 'creating barriers to entry.'

There are many techniques, but one of the most important is advertising.
Advertising is partial or selective truth which costs a great deal of money to create and broadcast and publish.

The high cost of effective advertising effectively becomes a difficult barrier for any newcomer to overcome. So, instead, he or she joins an existing party and compromises, often greatly.

The great cost of the advertising is generally paid by what are called special interests in the United States. A United States Senator, on average, spends fully two-thirds of his or her time raising money.

This bent towards special interests is one of the great problems developing in most modern democracies.

It has become genuinely dangerous in the United States, effectively reducing a ‘modern democracy’ to something that in many ways reflects the 18th century when the influence of the upper classes dominated politics.

The taking of polls in the U.S. only seems to cease mattering when it comes to a long series of colonial wars. The super-duper hyper-patriotism fostered in the U.S. makes sure that people mostly quickly fall into line

Answer 2

Democracy works best societies that value individuality like ours. Which doesn't make it the best. In cultures that value nationalism (china), communism works best. In societies that value spirituality (iran) theocracy works best (although iran is kinda bad at it). The only true democracy in the world is Switzerland, where laws are passed when a petition for a certain law gains X amount of signatures. Needless to say, in small countries like switzerland, it works wonderfully. However in a huge country of hundreds of millions of people, like the US, democracy is ineffective and undecisive. Unfortunately a democratic republic is the best system we've come up with so far. Still better than a dictatorship. Communism is more efficient in theory, disasterous in practice. And pretty much every other kind of government is a dictatorship in one form or another.

Answer 3

Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government. Its name comes from the ancient Greek for "rule by the people". A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practised is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs.

Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority". Popular sovereignty is common but not universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy.

Answer 4

Didn't see the movie... but the "dad's" answer sounds like moronic liberal pap that Hollywood pontificates to the unwashed proletariat so that might become "educated".
A true Democracy is 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It usually degenerates to mob rule... people generally vote for their own selfish interest rather that what would benefit the whole.

Answer 5

The United States is a republic, so I wouldn't know what a true democracy would be like. I bet it would be better than what is taking place now.

Answer 6

In a democracy, everything would be up to a vote of the people. There would be no representatives.

Answer 7

By the people
for the people
to the people.

Answer 8

Democracy is never having to say you're sorry.

Answer 9

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/democracy literal definition check it out.

Answer 10

no