6 ms·

Sorry, but democracy is not automaticcally a guarantee that there is no corruption. I can tell, because I am living in a supposedly democratic country which ha

by lynx23 4y ago

Sorry, but democracy is not automaticcally a guarantee that there is no corruption. I can tell, because I am living in a supposedly democratic country which has gained quite a number of points in the corruption-index recently...

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
There is the ability of the population to organize and vote out and and all corrupt influence. Usually the citzenry is kept down via media and culture, but as several revolutions have shown, the old culture can get thrown out hard and fast, if the population has enough.
- lynx23 4y ago
  I believe the time of revolutions is actually gone. We've reached a point where the comfort we're enjoying in the west is baasically preventing revolutionary change. Because even though there might be things you dont like about the system you are in, overall, with social security, a health care system that mostly works (sorry USA, I am not talking about you, death penalty and all) vmost people prefer the status quo over whatever revolution you might imagine.
layer8 4y ago
You’re undermining your point by calling it “supposedly”. You’re otherwise not wrong, though.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Well no true Scotsman and so on. Even in old and established democracies, there's usually a large gap between what is said of the democracy, and what the democracy actually is and does.
- lynx23 4y ago
  That was my cynism. Democracy seems to be used as a wildcard to say "we are the good people" awfully lot recently, which gets my attention.
  - layer8 4y ago
    Yeah, but when your argument is that $BAD_THING still occurs in a democracy (which it certainly does), then it doesn’t help if you weaken that to a “supposed” democracy, because then the counterargument is that it wouldn’t happen in a real democracy. Whereas your aim is to argue that (real) democracy isn’t a panacea.
    - lynx23 4y ago
      Point taken. Thanks for correcting me and actually taking the time to understand what I was really trying to say. And thanks for the very appropriate word suggestion. "democracy isn’t a panacea" is indeed a very concise way of stating what I wanted to say.
eru 4y ago
The comment you replied to said the opposite. They said: > You need a rule of law, to tame corruption and no non-democracy has that. As far as I can tell, that implies the only combination that's impossible is non-democracy and non-corruption. Ie all non-democracies are corrupt, but some democracies might also be corrupt. Btw, I don't think that's even true: British ruled Hong Kong had rule of law, but no democracy. However statistically, there seems to be at least a weak correlation (negative) between corruption and democracy.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Without democracy the rule of law itself is corrupt.
  - eru 4y ago
    What definitions of democracy, rule of law and corruption are you using here? As long as contracts are being upheld, and court decisions are speedy and predictable, and public officials don't enrich themselves, that counts as low / no corruption, doesn't it? Democracy might help with that ideal, but it's by no means strictly necessary.
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens. That is legally-enforced corruption.
      - eru 4y ago
        What definition of corruption are you using here? As far as I can tell, an absolute monarchy that is run for the benefit of the ruler can still have rule of law and low corruption. As an alternate history example, take Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, but make him king and increase his salary to 1 billion SGD per year (instead of 1 million SGD per year). Change nothing else. They would still be one of the least corrupt countries on earth, and have a judiciary that enforces the rule of law. > Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens. That can and does happen in democracies, too.
laratiede 4y ago
The older I get the harder it is to not see Pareto was right about democracy. "Pareto believed that societies are ruled by an elite class, which he called the "circulation of elites." In his view, these elites are able to gain and maintain power by using their wealth, intelligence, and social connections to influence political and economic institutions. Pareto saw democracy as a way to redistribute power and wealth from the elite to the masses, but he was skeptical that this could ever be achieved in practice. He argued that even in democracies, power tends to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are able to control the political process and manipulate public opinion." I am not sure what the argument really is against that. That sounds like the reality we live in.

by lynx23 4y ago

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

There is the ability of the population to organize and vote out and and all corrupt influence. Usually the citzenry is kept down via media and culture, but as several revolutions have shown, the old culture can get thrown out hard and fast, if the population has enough.

lynx23 4y ago
I believe the time of revolutions is actually gone. We've reached a point where the comfort we're enjoying in the west is baasically preventing revolutionary change. Because even though there might be things you dont like about the system you are in, overall, with social security, a health care system that mostly works (sorry USA, I am not talking about you, death penalty and all) vmost people prefer the status quo over whatever revolution you might imagine.

layer8 4y ago

You’re undermining your point by calling it “supposedly”. You’re otherwise not wrong, though.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Well no true Scotsman and so on. Even in old and established democracies, there's usually a large gap between what is said of the democracy, and what the democracy actually is and does.
lynx23 4y ago
That was my cynism. Democracy seems to be used as a wildcard to say "we are the good people" awfully lot recently, which gets my attention.
- layer8 4y ago
  Yeah, but when your argument is that $BAD_THING still occurs in a democracy (which it certainly does), then it doesn’t help if you weaken that to a “supposed” democracy, because then the counterargument is that it wouldn’t happen in a real democracy. Whereas your aim is to argue that (real) democracy isn’t a panacea.
  - lynx23 4y ago
    Point taken. Thanks for correcting me and actually taking the time to understand what I was really trying to say. And thanks for the very appropriate word suggestion. "democracy isn’t a panacea" is indeed a very concise way of stating what I wanted to say.

eru 4y ago

The comment you replied to said the opposite. They said: > You need a rule of law, to tame corruption and no non-democracy has that. As far as I can tell, that implies the only combination that's impossible is non-democracy and non-corruption. Ie all non-democracies are corrupt, but some democracies might also be corrupt. Btw, I don't think that's even true: British ruled Hong Kong had rule of law, but no democracy. However statistically, there seems to be at least a weak correlation (negative) between corruption and democracy.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Without democracy the rule of law itself is corrupt.
- eru 4y ago
  What definitions of democracy, rule of law and corruption are you using here? As long as contracts are being upheld, and court decisions are speedy and predictable, and public officials don't enrich themselves, that counts as low / no corruption, doesn't it? Democracy might help with that ideal, but it's by no means strictly necessary.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens. That is legally-enforced corruption.
    - eru 4y ago
      What definition of corruption are you using here? As far as I can tell, an absolute monarchy that is run for the benefit of the ruler can still have rule of law and low corruption. As an alternate history example, take Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, but make him king and increase his salary to 1 billion SGD per year (instead of 1 million SGD per year). Change nothing else. They would still be one of the least corrupt countries on earth, and have a judiciary that enforces the rule of law. > Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens. That can and does happen in democracies, too.

laratiede 4y ago

The older I get the harder it is to not see Pareto was right about democracy. "Pareto believed that societies are ruled by an elite class, which he called the "circulation of elites." In his view, these elites are able to gain and maintain power by using their wealth, intelligence, and social connections to influence political and economic institutions. Pareto saw democracy as a way to redistribute power and wealth from the elite to the masses, but he was skeptical that this could ever be achieved in practice. He argued that even in democracies, power tends to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of people who are able to control the political process and manipulate public opinion." I am not sure what the argument really is against that. That sounds like the reality we live in.