democracy?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jodylee, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. jodylee
    Offline

    jodylee Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +65
    time and time again i hear people voice support for the iraqi war
    based on the introduction of democracy.
    but is demoracy the awnser.
    western demorcacy evolved over centuries, and was preceded by royal dictatorship.
    the political system evolved as the middle class grew.
    and its for this reason i think democracy has worked in the west.
    imposing deocracy on a country that has a small middle class and is in poverty may result in many cases 'virtuall dictatorship', a good example being zimbabwe where the elected mugabe destroyes opposition evicts voters of the oppositon and reighns unchallengable.
    even in the west when germany was on its kness after the first world war. the elected adolf hitler assumed totall control and eliminated opposision. infact i can't think of one county outside the west (correct me if im wrong) that has succesfully adopted democracy appart from japan & india (india
    being industrialised by british rule).
    then there is the other side of the coin, non democratic regiems that have woked, well, as i said before, the west was born out of dictatorship, cuba has the best national health service in the world, china's doing quite well, saudia arabia, south america's sorting its self out slowly, morroco, all of which are doing much better than many democratic states. Im all for demorcracy when a country is ready for it, and this takes us back to iraq, but can be catastrophic when impossed too soon.
    i know what you people are like, so if you want evidence be specific and i will provide.
     
  2. Merlin
    Offline

    Merlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Ponchatoula, La.
    Ratings:
    +61
    We don't live in a democracy. Never have.
    Democracy - as described in a 1928 U.S. Army training manual:
    "Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of ‘direct' expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards laws is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

    Republic - "A constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The IndividualÂ’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general."

    January 5, 2005


    We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

    The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

    So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

    In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

    Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

    How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

    The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

    Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    I think there are artificial differences between Republic and democracy.
    You can easily have a democracy with a charter of rights, or a bill of rights, that protects the minority rights, from any majority decision that acts oppressively. Canada is not a republic, yet there are protections largely simlilar to those afforded individuals and small groups in the USA.

    Remember that the 'founding fathers' were just people too, not some super cadre of brilliant minds sent to make the world a utopia. Their goals largely favoured the elite, moneyed classes over 'the hordes of people born into the lower order'. And the electoral college had different meaning when the US was a younger, less populous, less connected nation. Now, anyone anywhere can communicate with anyone else... and unless you wish to abdicate your own voice in how your own nation is run - the will of the people should be the first concern in any election.
     
  4. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    You might want to give that faggot Castro a call and see if he agrees with you, if he is still alive.:rofl:
     
  5. Gurdari
    Offline

    Gurdari Egaliterra

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the West
    Ratings:
    +40
    You might want to put aside your gradeschool prejudice and look at the facts. Look at the life expectancy of USA and compare to a few other nations while you're at it.
     

Share This Page