5 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as citizens can vote on their leaders, you have a democracy. This has nothing to do with how much power the government has

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as citizens can vote on their leaders, you have a democracy. This has nothing to do with how much power the government has or wants over its citizens. As long as they can vote on different representatives, I don't see a problem for "democracy". I do however see a problem with privacy and freedom, or like you say, a downward trend of civil rights.

switch007 4y ago
That’s a very weak definition of democracy We have a democracy in name only. We elect people who rubber stamp laws that have been written by lobbyists. We elect people from a pool of people many of who are running only because of donations from rich people and organisations with agendas, or that they are rich enough themselves and move in certain circles.
dekken_ 4y ago
Even if you can vote, it doesn't mean your vote matters. Breaking campaign promises is not a crime anywhere that I know of.
Emigre_ 4y ago
The notion of democracy has evolved over time and nowadays is commonly understood to be a gradient, encompassing a number of democratic indicators in addition to free and fair elections: freedom of press, freedom of assembly, respect for the individual, civil rights... There are a number of 'democratic indexes' like the Freedom in the World index by Freedom House and The Economist's Democracy Index. A contry can score low even if technically its citizens are able to vote. You can read more about democracy in an excellent book by Bernard Crick, 'Democracy: A Very Short Introduction' (2002), by Oxford University Press.
- shlurpy 4y ago
  The biggest trick ever played by the ruling elite was convincing people that private property rights and capitalism were somehow related to and necessary for democracy. Democracy should be that power comes from the people, but wealth creates unaccountable power structures that have far more power over the lives of most people then any government.
denton-scratch 4y ago
I'll bite; I think you're wrong. Democracy isn't defined as "citizens can vote on their leaders". And I think your notion that as long as leaders are elected, there can be no problems, is manifestly incorrect. If we accept your definition, then "democracy" isn't a form of government; it's an event that occurs every 4-5 years. In between polls, "citizens" have little input into decisions. With that definition, almost every government in the world is "democratic" - most of them have elected presidents. Just that they were elected 40 years ago, or they fix the elections. Even the use of the word "citizen" is open to question; are US felons citizens? Why is it permissible to deny citizen-felons a vote?

switch007 4y ago

That’s a very weak definition of democracy We have a democracy in name only. We elect people who rubber stamp laws that have been written by lobbyists. We elect people from a pool of people many of who are running only because of donations from rich people and organisations with agendas, or that they are rich enough themselves and move in certain circles.

dekken_ 4y ago

Even if you can vote, it doesn't mean your vote matters. Breaking campaign promises is not a crime anywhere that I know of.

Emigre_ 4y ago

The notion of democracy has evolved over time and nowadays is commonly understood to be a gradient, encompassing a number of democratic indicators in addition to free and fair elections: freedom of press, freedom of assembly, respect for the individual, civil rights... There are a number of 'democratic indexes' like the Freedom in the World index by Freedom House and The Economist's Democracy Index. A contry can score low even if technically its citizens are able to vote. You can read more about democracy in an excellent book by Bernard Crick, 'Democracy: A Very Short Introduction' (2002), by Oxford University Press.

shlurpy 4y ago
The biggest trick ever played by the ruling elite was convincing people that private property rights and capitalism were somehow related to and necessary for democracy. Democracy should be that power comes from the people, but wealth creates unaccountable power structures that have far more power over the lives of most people then any government.

denton-scratch 4y ago

I'll bite; I think you're wrong. Democracy isn't defined as "citizens can vote on their leaders". And I think your notion that as long as leaders are elected, there can be no problems, is manifestly incorrect. If we accept your definition, then "democracy" isn't a form of government; it's an event that occurs every 4-5 years. In between polls, "citizens" have little input into decisions. With that definition, almost every government in the world is "democratic" - most of them have elected presidents. Just that they were elected 40 years ago, or they fix the elections. Even the use of the word "citizen" is open to question; are US felons citizens? Why is it permissible to deny citizen-felons a vote?