4 ms·

One of the stunning things to me in the last few years was our collective inability to explain why democracy is a good thing. The best short statement I can co

One of the stunning things to me in the last few years was our collective inability to explain why democracy is a good thing. The best short statement I can come up with is that a functional democracy is the best system of accountability that we have come up with. It is the system most likely to keep morons from positions of power. It is the system most likely to eject corrupt leaders.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
I think Churchill had a way with words: ‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
- bloak 5y ago
  In my opinion that's a stupid saying because democracy isn't a "form of Government". In reality there is an infinite range of forms of Government and people can argue for ever about which form is more or less democratic than which other forms. I also find that the conclusions, if there are any, from that kind of argument are often not very useful. For example, the UK is in some ways a great place from a constitutional point of view, but that's despite having a totally crap electoral system (I usually don't bother voting: it makes no difference). What makes the UK's constitution great is the way the judiciary really is independent and really can rein in the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe... Is that part of democracy? Probably, but it's all very vague and subjective.
  - consumer451 5y ago
    > In my opinion that's a stupid saying because democracy isn't a "form of Government". What is it then?
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      A system to create a government? (not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions, but I think there is a point, that in most democracies, there is no more power for the demos, once the government has been elected, until the next election. There are exceptions and nuances of course, but direct democracy like in switzerland is quite rare)
      - consumer451 5y ago
        >not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions Sir, this is a Hacker News thread. Pedantic discussions, heck yes! I see your point. We seem to be talking about representative vs direct democracies. I would argue both are systems of government. I can see why most implementations are representative. A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? But the Swiss example is interesting. I need to read up on that more. Some factors for the Swiss model may be a much smaller and more educated population? On the face of it direct sounds ideal. I would love to hear a Swiss HNer's gripes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        "A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? " True, which is why I prefer small states.
    - bloak 5y ago
      > What is it then? I'd say it's a property of forms of government, or of constitutions: some of them are more democratic than others. Sometimes it's obvious which of two systems is more democratic; sometimes reasonable people will disagree. There can be different opinions on which criteria are most important. For example, how much does it matter if convicts are not allowed to vote, or if homeless people find it almost impossible to vote in practice? But also it's not really the formal rules that matter. How things work in practice can be more important. How are the rules interpreted? Do people really follow them? What would happen if the government broke the rules? How would people behave in a crisis? Like I said, my feeling is that the UK has a relatively strong culture of democracy despite having a very bad electoral system and a monarch that could theoretically refuse to give royal assent. I think a government that was really hated by a big majority of the population would be removed without violence before too long. I think that's how one philosopher (Karl Popper?) defined democracy. But I'd still like to see things improved.
  - hnhg 5y ago
    Agreed. The fact that it's so easily winner-takes-all in the UK means that there is a real lack of representation of the plurality of views in the country, and a minority can basically run what amounts to a temporary dictatorship. Is that the only form of democratic government? Thankfully, not, but this isn't talked about as much as it should be.
    - consumer451 5y ago
      Both the US and the UK are certainly not the best exemplars of democracy in the 21st century. They both appear to me to have obsolete mechanics compared to newer implementations.
  - idleproc 5y ago
    The Reith Lectures in 2019 were titled: Law and the Decline of Politics [1]. Obviously, only one viewpoint but quite interesting. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9/episodes/player https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9/episodes/player
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
If there was some kind of filtering for voters it wild be even better. Since you are supposed to choose someone who will lead your country, it means you understand what that person says. Some su PO er basic test on that would be welcome. Then a second part on general culture, such as name a country we have a border with. Or who is the current prime minister. Or is your country part of nato or the eu. Sure this is not democracy anymore, but the vote makes more sense because you know what you vote for. Specifically it does not matter of I find your candidate good or not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
m000 5y ago
When democracy regresses to essentially a 2-party system, then accountability is pretty limited. Essentially an omerta is established between the two main parties. Then, the ruling party knows that they can rule however they want, and they're pretty much guaranteed to bounce back in power eventually. That could be even worse than the accountability of a strongman/autocratic leader. An autocrat may be harder to dispose of, but at least you know they're not very likely to bounce back.
- consumer451 5y ago
  > When democracy regresses to essentially a 2-party system, then accountability is pretty limited. I agree with that one hundred percent. I am not arguing that any one implementation of democracy is The Way, but that the concept is generally superior to other known alternatives. > Omertà Thanks for the new vocabulary word! That's a great one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omert%C3%A0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omert%C3%A0
tored 5y ago
Can't really agree. Many of the professional politicians in Sweden doesn't have any formal degree or professional career, they are uneducated broilers, i.e. morons. The ruling political party in Sweden, Socialdemokraterna, has given themselves their own lottery system, A-lotterierna, a system filled with filth and corruption like selling lottery tickets on credit (against the law) to poor people, and at the same time legislating on lottery in general. Socialdemokraterna has made over 3 billion SEK on their lottery system. Democracies strength has been not to go to war against other democracies. But the corruption is still there. And the morons.
- consumer451 5y ago
  I should not have said “morons.” I am not formally educated beyond high school, does that make me a moron? Well, maybe. I meant no insult there. Not sure what better word to use. I am repeating myself in the thread, but perfect is the enemy of good. Just because there are easily citable instances of corruption does not make the entire concept of democracy invalid, does it? What would be a better system in your view? Would it still involve elections?
  - tored 5y ago
    In Sweden broiler is common political term for a person that has their entire career and life within the same political party and many of that political party's suborganisations like for youth, religion, students, women, scouts etc. They have lived their entire life in a fake world, made up of political strife between different factions and political scheming against opponents, often within the same organisation. This is far from reality where the rest of us live, thus that is why I also mentioned professional career as well. When people get contact with reality usually they shed the most stupid ideas they have. And a professional career can even be a stronger antidote against "moronism" than a formal education. The thing is that the "better system" is never a choice, you have the system you have and the system we (you) have now was never by choice either. "Constitution" is a series of compromises, historical events, traditions and fads. Thus you have to look where you live a change things depending on that, a system that works in one country will fail in another and so on. Specifically in Sweden I would revert some parts in the 1974 constitution to the 1809 constitution. The 1809 constitution favours separation of powers whereas the 1974 constitution favours popular sovereignty.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

I think Churchill had a way with words: ‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

bloak 5y ago
In my opinion that's a stupid saying because democracy isn't a "form of Government". In reality there is an infinite range of forms of Government and people can argue for ever about which form is more or less democratic than which other forms. I also find that the conclusions, if there are any, from that kind of argument are often not very useful. For example, the UK is in some ways a great place from a constitutional point of view, but that's despite having a totally crap electoral system (I usually don't bother voting: it makes no difference). What makes the UK's constitution great is the way the judiciary really is independent and really can rein in the government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe... Is that part of democracy? Probably, but it's all very vague and subjective.
- consumer451 5y ago
  > In my opinion that's a stupid saying because democracy isn't a "form of Government". What is it then?
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    A system to create a government? (not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions, but I think there is a point, that in most democracies, there is no more power for the demos, once the government has been elected, until the next election. There are exceptions and nuances of course, but direct democracy like in switzerland is quite rare)
    - consumer451 5y ago
      >not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions Sir, this is a Hacker News thread. Pedantic discussions, heck yes! I see your point. We seem to be talking about representative vs direct democracies. I would argue both are systems of government. I can see why most implementations are representative. A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? But the Swiss example is interesting. I need to read up on that more. Some factors for the Swiss model may be a much smaller and more educated population? On the face of it direct sounds ideal. I would love to hear a Swiss HNer's gripes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? " True, which is why I prefer small states.
  - bloak 5y ago
    > What is it then? I'd say it's a property of forms of government, or of constitutions: some of them are more democratic than others. Sometimes it's obvious which of two systems is more democratic; sometimes reasonable people will disagree. There can be different opinions on which criteria are most important. For example, how much does it matter if convicts are not allowed to vote, or if homeless people find it almost impossible to vote in practice? But also it's not really the formal rules that matter. How things work in practice can be more important. How are the rules interpreted? Do people really follow them? What would happen if the government broke the rules? How would people behave in a crisis? Like I said, my feeling is that the UK has a relatively strong culture of democracy despite having a very bad electoral system and a monarch that could theoretically refuse to give royal assent. I think a government that was really hated by a big majority of the population would be removed without violence before too long. I think that's how one philosopher (Karl Popper?) defined democracy. But I'd still like to see things improved.
- hnhg 5y ago
  Agreed. The fact that it's so easily winner-takes-all in the UK means that there is a real lack of representation of the plurality of views in the country, and a minority can basically run what amounts to a temporary dictatorship. Is that the only form of democratic government? Thankfully, not, but this isn't talked about as much as it should be.
  - consumer451 5y ago
    Both the US and the UK are certainly not the best exemplars of democracy in the 21st century. They both appear to me to have obsolete mechanics compared to newer implementations.
- idleproc 5y ago
  The Reith Lectures in 2019 were titled: Law and the Decline of Politics [1]. Obviously, only one viewpoint but quite interesting. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9/episodes/player https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00057m9/episodes/player

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

If there was some kind of filtering for voters it wild be even better. Since you are supposed to choose someone who will lead your country, it means you understand what that person says. Some su PO er basic test on that would be welcome. Then a second part on general culture, such as name a country we have a border with. Or who is the current prime minister. Or is your country part of nato or the eu. Sure this is not democracy anymore, but the vote makes more sense because you know what you vote for. Specifically it does not matter of I find your candidate good or not.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

m000 5y ago

When democracy regresses to essentially a 2-party system, then accountability is pretty limited. Essentially an omerta is established between the two main parties. Then, the ruling party knows that they can rule however they want, and they're pretty much guaranteed to bounce back in power eventually. That could be even worse than the accountability of a strongman/autocratic leader. An autocrat may be harder to dispose of, but at least you know they're not very likely to bounce back.

consumer451 5y ago
> When democracy regresses to essentially a 2-party system, then accountability is pretty limited. I agree with that one hundred percent. I am not arguing that any one implementation of democracy is The Way, but that the concept is generally superior to other known alternatives. > Omertà Thanks for the new vocabulary word! That's a great one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omert%C3%A0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omert%C3%A0

tored 5y ago

Can't really agree. Many of the professional politicians in Sweden doesn't have any formal degree or professional career, they are uneducated broilers, i.e. morons. The ruling political party in Sweden, Socialdemokraterna, has given themselves their own lottery system, A-lotterierna, a system filled with filth and corruption like selling lottery tickets on credit (against the law) to poor people, and at the same time legislating on lottery in general. Socialdemokraterna has made over 3 billion SEK on their lottery system. Democracies strength has been not to go to war against other democracies. But the corruption is still there. And the morons.

consumer451 5y ago
I should not have said “morons.” I am not formally educated beyond high school, does that make me a moron? Well, maybe. I meant no insult there. Not sure what better word to use. I am repeating myself in the thread, but perfect is the enemy of good. Just because there are easily citable instances of corruption does not make the entire concept of democracy invalid, does it? What would be a better system in your view? Would it still involve elections?
- tored 5y ago
  In Sweden broiler is common political term for a person that has their entire career and life within the same political party and many of that political party's suborganisations like for youth, religion, students, women, scouts etc. They have lived their entire life in a fake world, made up of political strife between different factions and political scheming against opponents, often within the same organisation. This is far from reality where the rest of us live, thus that is why I also mentioned professional career as well. When people get contact with reality usually they shed the most stupid ideas they have. And a professional career can even be a stronger antidote against "moronism" than a formal education. The thing is that the "better system" is never a choice, you have the system you have and the system we (you) have now was never by choice either. "Constitution" is a series of compromises, historical events, traditions and fads. Thus you have to look where you live a change things depending on that, a system that works in one country will fail in another and so on. Specifically in Sweden I would revert some parts in the 1974 constitution to the 1809 constitution. The 1809 constitution favours separation of powers whereas the 1974 constitution favours popular sovereignty.