9 ms·

The people inside the democracy. They need democracy.

hkai 8y ago
Well, they believe they don't. My compatriots from my two home nations, Russia and China, usually defend the authoritarian policy thanks to years of soft propaganda and opinion guiding. "Western countries have problems too, and did you see America, this is what democracy leads to." You can see that on HN, too.
- geofft 8y ago
  The fact that these people believe that their current system of government is better - i.e., that the result of a democratic election would be to avoid democracy - should cause us to worry if the same effect is at play when people who have lived their whole life under a democratic regime say that their current system of government is better, too.
- njarboe 8y ago
  See "Manufacturing Consent" (1988) by Chomsky and Herman for a classic critique of how in the West there are also "soft propaganda and opinion guiding" systems in place and operating successfully. I wonder though, with the internet and the rise of Trump, if Chomsky might say these systems are not in control as much as they used to be.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >Western countries have problems too, and did you see America, this is what democracy leads to." When you compare the "democratic" two-party American answer to terrorism and the "autocratic" one-party Chinese answer, it's hard to see democracy as the superior choice. Spying on millions of people is terrible, as are the re-education camps, but the "War on Terror" is responsible for millions of deaths while spying on millions of people. Years of soft propaganda make people praise American behavior, and democracy provides no option to end it.
beat 8y ago
Do they? Can you really establish a rational need for democracy, or are you just running on cultural reflex? If you take this question as me saying we shouldn't have democracy, maybe it's reflex. It's an interesting question. Democracy isn't an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. What is that end (or those ends)? How else can those ends be achieved?
- cocacola1 8y ago
  Does there even need to be an end at all? I prefer the notion that there's never an end and it's just all one long journey. Death may be the end of a person, but the journey continues for everyone & everything else.
- Tade0 8y ago
  The end is a robust system that minimises corruption and this can only be achieved when the people in power can be held accountable and are easy to replace.
  - beat 8y ago
    Ok, so why is corruption the problem? I can easily imagine a government that is not corrupt at all that terrifies me (such as a theocratic state), and I can imagine governments that are quite corrupt that are just fine for most purposes.
- bopbop 8y ago
  A rational need for democracy for you would be so that I don't govern you according to my wishes. A rational need for democracy for me would be that you don't govern me according to your wishes. A rational need for democracy for the uyghurs would be that Xi Jumping doesn't govern them according to his wishes. I've always understood this to be what is meant by democracy is the worst form of governance, apart from all the others.
  - gknoy 8y ago
    But ... we currently (in the US) have a direct example of the rulers in power governing the populace in a way which is "not according to the wishes" of roughly half the population. (I think this is a direct result of our 2 party system, as compared to Britain's multiple parties, but I've no idea how to fix it.) Any time you vote on the losing side of an election (whether it's for who to elect, or approve a tax, or legalize (or ban) certain acts, you end up being governed by _every one else's_ wishes. On the bright side, at least in a democracy I mostly have the trust that such changes CAN happen, over time, if enough people come to believe similarly as I do about things.

hkai 8y ago

Well, they believe they don't. My compatriots from my two home nations, Russia and China, usually defend the authoritarian policy thanks to years of soft propaganda and opinion guiding. "Western countries have problems too, and did you see America, this is what democracy leads to." You can see that on HN, too.

geofft 8y ago
The fact that these people believe that their current system of government is better - i.e., that the result of a democratic election would be to avoid democracy - should cause us to worry if the same effect is at play when people who have lived their whole life under a democratic regime say that their current system of government is better, too.
njarboe 8y ago
See "Manufacturing Consent" (1988) by Chomsky and Herman for a classic critique of how in the West there are also "soft propaganda and opinion guiding" systems in place and operating successfully. I wonder though, with the internet and the rise of Trump, if Chomsky might say these systems are not in control as much as they used to be.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
>Western countries have problems too, and did you see America, this is what democracy leads to." When you compare the "democratic" two-party American answer to terrorism and the "autocratic" one-party Chinese answer, it's hard to see democracy as the superior choice. Spying on millions of people is terrible, as are the re-education camps, but the "War on Terror" is responsible for millions of deaths while spying on millions of people. Years of soft propaganda make people praise American behavior, and democracy provides no option to end it.

beat 8y ago

Do they? Can you really establish a rational need for democracy, or are you just running on cultural reflex? If you take this question as me saying we shouldn't have democracy, maybe it's reflex. It's an interesting question. Democracy isn't an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. What is that end (or those ends)? How else can those ends be achieved?

cocacola1 8y ago
Does there even need to be an end at all? I prefer the notion that there's never an end and it's just all one long journey. Death may be the end of a person, but the journey continues for everyone & everything else.
Tade0 8y ago
The end is a robust system that minimises corruption and this can only be achieved when the people in power can be held accountable and are easy to replace.
- beat 8y ago
  Ok, so why is corruption the problem? I can easily imagine a government that is not corrupt at all that terrifies me (such as a theocratic state), and I can imagine governments that are quite corrupt that are just fine for most purposes.
bopbop 8y ago
A rational need for democracy for you would be so that I don't govern you according to my wishes. A rational need for democracy for me would be that you don't govern me according to your wishes. A rational need for democracy for the uyghurs would be that Xi Jumping doesn't govern them according to his wishes. I've always understood this to be what is meant by democracy is the worst form of governance, apart from all the others.
- gknoy 8y ago
  But ... we currently (in the US) have a direct example of the rulers in power governing the populace in a way which is "not according to the wishes" of roughly half the population. (I think this is a direct result of our 2 party system, as compared to Britain's multiple parties, but I've no idea how to fix it.) Any time you vote on the losing side of an election (whether it's for who to elect, or approve a tax, or legalize (or ban) certain acts, you end up being governed by _every one else's_ wishes. On the bright side, at least in a democracy I mostly have the trust that such changes CAN happen, over time, if enough people come to believe similarly as I do about things.