Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Democracy
From Debatepedia
(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 17:48, 15 March 2010 (edit) Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs) (→No) ← Previous diff |
Current revision (05:27, 9 October 2010) (edit) Ichiro22 (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
{|style="font-size:100%; padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;" cellpadding="5" | {|style="font-size:100%; padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;" cellpadding="5" | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
+ | ===History: Does history prove democracy to be the best form of government?=== | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
+ | ====Yes==== | ||
+ | *'''Modern democracy has been advocated for hundreds of years as the best form of government''', and was taken as the model by societies we take as the founders of modern liberties, such as the French and American Revolutionary states. It has been proved by history as the best form of government. | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''Only fundamentally free societies can be fundamentally secure and developed,''' which is backed up by many examples from our history. See ''"Peacebuilding and the impact of post-conflict areas on European security" by Professor Anton Grizold (Department of Political Science - Defence Studies, University of Ljublana''. | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''Democracy is better than all its alternatives.''' History shows us that autocracies, theocracies, oligarchies, etc. are either ''ineffective'' forms of government, ''instable'', ''corrupt'', ''inapt to deal with crises'' and/or ''prone to violate basic human rights and freedoms'' - clearly a state that is undesirable. | ||
+ | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
+ | ====No==== | ||
+ | *'''''Modern'' democracy doesn't work well.''' Modern democracy ( as opposed to classical, Athenian democracy ) is a facade. ‘True’ democracy can only be practised on a very small scale. In Britain for example, whilst people may vote every five years, they have no input into decision beyond this. This is the desirable state of things, but it is not democracy. Our current state of government would be far more effective if it abandoned its pretences at representativity. | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''"Democracy has never endured in countries with mainly non-market economies.''' The existence of an overweening state machine that meddles in everything can tempt leaders to use it against their political foes. Total control of the economy also sucks the air away from what Istvan Bibo, a Hungarian political thinker, called “the little circles of freedom”—the free associations and independent power centres that a free economy allows." [http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15270960 The Economist, "Crying for freedom", January 16th, 2010] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
Line 40: | Line 56: | ||
*'''Democracy can easily result in a "tyranny of the majority".''' According to Fareed Zakaria (''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad''), especially less developed countries encounter problems when implementing basic democratic principles, as majorities are able to systematically undermine the whole legal system, as well as the protection of human rights. | *'''Democracy can easily result in a "tyranny of the majority".''' According to Fareed Zakaria (''The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad''), especially less developed countries encounter problems when implementing basic democratic principles, as majorities are able to systematically undermine the whole legal system, as well as the protection of human rights. | ||
- | |- | ||
- | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | ===History: Does history prove democracy to be the best form of government?=== | ||
- | |- | ||
- | |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | ====Yes==== | ||
- | *'''Modern democracy has been advocated for hundreds of years as the best form of government''', and was taken as the model by societies we take as the founders of modern liberties, such as the French and American Revolutionary states. It has been proved by history as the best form of government. | ||
- | |||
- | *'''Democracy is better than all its alternatives.''' History shows us that autocracies, theocracies, oligarchies, etc. are either ''ineffective'' forms of government, ''instable'', ''corrupt'', ''inapt to deal with crises'' and/or ''prone to violate basic human rights and freedoms'' - clearly a state that is undesirable. | ||
- | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | ====No==== | ||
- | *'''''Modern'' democracy doesn't work well.''' Modern democracy ( as opposed to classical, Athenian democracy ) is a facade. ‘True’ democracy can only be practised on a very small scale. In Britain for example, whilst people may vote every five years, they have no input into decision beyond this. This is the desirable state of things, but it is not democracy. Our current state of government would be far more effective if it abandoned its pretences at representativity. | ||
- | |||
- | *'''"Democracy has never endured in countries with mainly non-market economies.''' The existence of an overweening state machine that meddles in everything can tempt leaders to use it against their political foes. Total control of the economy also sucks the air away from what Istvan Bibo, a Hungarian political thinker, called “the little circles of freedom”—the free associations and independent power centres that a free economy allows." [http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15270960 The Economist, "Crying for freedom", January 16th, 2010] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
Line 71: | Line 73: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | ===Governance: Does democracy improve decision-making?=== | + | ===Governance: Does democracy improve decision-making? Does it matter?=== |
|- | |- | ||
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
Line 78: | Line 80: | ||
*'''Avoiding catastrophic mistakes.''' "A culture of compromise—coupled with greater accountability and limits on state power—means that democracies are better able to avoid catastrophic mistakes, or criminal cruelty. Bloody nightmares that cost tens of millions of lives, like China’s Great Leap Forward or the Soviet Union’s forced collectivisation programme, were made possible by the concentration of power in a small group of people who faced no restraint. (...) poor autocracies [are] at least twice as likely as democracies to suffer an economic disaster (defined as a decline of 10% or more in GDP in a year)" [http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15270960 The Economist, "Crying for freedom", January 16th 2010] | *'''Avoiding catastrophic mistakes.''' "A culture of compromise—coupled with greater accountability and limits on state power—means that democracies are better able to avoid catastrophic mistakes, or criminal cruelty. Bloody nightmares that cost tens of millions of lives, like China’s Great Leap Forward or the Soviet Union’s forced collectivisation programme, were made possible by the concentration of power in a small group of people who faced no restraint. (...) poor autocracies [are] at least twice as likely as democracies to suffer an economic disaster (defined as a decline of 10% or more in GDP in a year)" [http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15270960 The Economist, "Crying for freedom", January 16th 2010] | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''The quality of governance is not as important.''' We cannot judge a political system on its outcome. What matters more are basic freedoms, rule of law, and respect for human dignity. So even if democracies were not yielding better results than autocracies, this should not be taken into account. | ||
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
*'''Populism.''' Unlike in totalitarian regimes, politicians in democracies have to secure their mandates. Every time elections are held, politicians do not aim to come up with reasonable proposals that would benefit the country, quite the opposite. They either need to show that no matter what, their opponents are always wrong, or the politicians have to present such policies that make them (or, at the very least, their political party) popular. That means that unpopular policies such as tax increases, or public spending cuts almost never get on the agenda, which can lead to disillusionment of voters, unsound monetary policies or other disasters - right after the elections. | *'''Populism.''' Unlike in totalitarian regimes, politicians in democracies have to secure their mandates. Every time elections are held, politicians do not aim to come up with reasonable proposals that would benefit the country, quite the opposite. They either need to show that no matter what, their opponents are always wrong, or the politicians have to present such policies that make them (or, at the very least, their political party) popular. That means that unpopular policies such as tax increases, or public spending cuts almost never get on the agenda, which can lead to disillusionment of voters, unsound monetary policies or other disasters - right after the elections. | ||
+ | |||
+ | *'''Tyranny of minorities.''' In proportional representative democracies it is quite common for ruling parties to form coalitions. These coalitions usually depend on smaller political parties who take an unfair advantage of this position and "blackmail" bigger parties on adopting specific legislation or during confidence votes. The fact that these small parties who in reality gained about 8% of all votes are able to obstruct the whole decision-making system in effect undermines the basics of democracy: ''all votes are equal'' | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
+ | ===Developing countries: Are democratic systems superior to authoritarian regimes?=== | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
+ | ====Yes==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
+ | ====No==== | ||
+ | *'''Democracy is a gradual process.''' In the long term, democracy is viable only in both politically and economically stable countries as it is usually during the time of crises when people tend to vote for extremist social or religious parties that could infringe upon the rights of minorities, thereby undermining the very pillars of the ''democratic'' state structure. [See Fareed Zakaria: "The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy Home and Abroad".] | ||
|- | |- |
Current revision
[Edit] Is democracy really the best form of government? |
[Edit] Background and contextDemocracy is best defined as government of the people, by the people. In the West, especially after ideological conflicts such as the Cold War, we can tend to assume that democracy is the only valid form of government. However, this assumption must be justified. The classical example of a democracy is that of Ancient Athens, where the whole populace would meet in the marketplace to vote on decisions. It can be argued form this position that modern ‘democracies’ are not in fact democratic. A common variation of this motion is Vox populi is a relic. |
[Edit] [ ![]() History: Does history prove democracy to be the best form of government? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Politics: Does (and should) the vox populi matter? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Economics: Does democracy promote economic growth? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Governance: Does democracy improve decision-making? Does it matter? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Developing countries: Are democratic systems superior to authoritarian regimes? | |
[Edit] Yes |
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] See also
[Edit] External links and resources:
[Edit] Books:
|