3 ms·

If you think there is any truth in this article, then real democracy becomes ever more important as a check on the power afforded the elite. I note that the Eu

If you think there is any truth in this article, then real democracy becomes ever more important as a check on the power afforded the elite. I note that the European Project (i.e. the slow but relentless move towards a United States of Europe) is a step away from democracy in that the European Commission is not elected by universal suffrage, but appointed, and that rules are made centrally and applied to diverse populations with different priorities.

cstross 12y ago
You missed the European Parliament, which is elected (with elections taking place right now). The balance of power between the EC and the EP needs to be shifted towards the EP, and other reforms are essential -- but the EU is not intrinsically anti-democratic; the real problem is that the members are all (at least nominally, esp. in the case of Hungary) democracies, with parliaments jealous of delegating power to a higher authority, so the regional governments have deliberate policies of trying to keep the center weak and unaccountable to the polity.
- aaronem 12y ago
  No doubt you know the United States had a similar problem in their early days, and that nothing sufficed to resolve that conflict short of a half-decade of generally very ugly warfare. Here's hoping the "United States of Europe" so-called don't find themselves so afflicted. From what I hear, though, that seems unlikely; it sounds as though those charged with its assembly are, whether or not they consider it in these terms, attempting wholly to preëmpt the democratic phase, by not only skipping straight to the bureaucratic sclerosis, but actually designing said bureaucracy instead of letting it simply grow in its own fashion. It's an interesting idea, and probably the best chance they've got of avoiding the susceptibility to dangerous enthusiasms which is a young democracy's besetting flaw. On the other hand, it seems at least plausible that attempting to subsume into federalism a range of distinct polities each of which has centuries of history as an independent state, without hammering them together by main force as was eventually done in the American case, is a project doomed to ignominious failure. Whether it'll actually work and how well, I haven't the slightest, but I sure do look forward to finding out.
- benaston 12y ago
  I omitted to mention the European Parliament for the very reason that it is democratic and is not relevant to my point. The European Commission, a key part of the EU is not elected by the people of Europe, hence it's members cannot be removed directly by the people of Europe and hence the EU as it currently stands is inherently undemocratic. Given the lessons to be learned from the history of Europe, I find this surprising and concerning.
Zigurd 12y ago
> If you think there is any truth in this article, then real democracy becomes ever more important There is a lot of evidence it doesn't work, and may not be fixable. What then?
- benaston 12y ago
  That is not a solved question. There is a lot of evidence that democracy is deeply flawed, but there is no evidence for a better way of organising nations. Indeed there is plenty of evidence that when you take democracy away from people, you get popular uprisings, civil disobedience and ultimately, violence. Given that, democracy should be our first port of call. Research into more effective forms of governance should continue to be persued.
aaronem 12y ago
Democracy is an unstable isotope of government, with a short half-life; unless overthrown, it invariably decays into leaden bureaucracy, which generally comes as something of a relief to all involved. Skipping the democratic phase entirely, and going straight to bureaucracy, seems like it will save a lot of trouble and time. Also, "rules [being] made centrally and applied to diverse populations with different priorities" is a more or less inevitable failure mode of federalism, however administered. (In fact, it's arguably the point of federalism.) As can be seen in the brief but instructive history of the United States, the representative-democratic method of rule is no insulation against this trait of the federal republic; indeed, a federal system offers broader scope than any other for the periodic paroxysms of popular madness which beset any democracy. These produce schisms between sections of the polity, and as these injuries heal, they form keloid plaques of bureaucracy which not only help seal the immediate breach but also help buffer the polity against future democratic spasm. Such proliferation of nonfunctional tissue is harmful to the organism in the long term, but from the individual point of view, life in a moderately senescent bureaucracy is often preferable to life in a young, agile, athletic democracy, simply because the former offers a vastly reduced likelihood of major upheaval.
andyjohnson0 12y ago
" the European Commission is not elected by universal suffrage, but appointed" True, but they are appointed by governments that are themselves elected by universal suffrage.
- benaston 12y ago
  That is orthogonal to my point. With the current system you get Cathy Ashton and Barroso and the farce that is the Ukraine. If people in positions of significant power are not elected directly by the people then said people have no way to remove them from power. That is not democratic. The very fact that the EU is designed in this way speaks to the mindset of those in Brussels and while it might not concern you, it concerns me.
  - andyjohnson0 12y ago
    It does concern me, and I agree that the commission has a problem of democratic accountability. I'm not sure that having directly elected commissioners would have prevented the mess in Ukraine, which is mainly caused by the complex motivations of varied and unpredictable actors. States bordering Russia have joined the EU/EEA before without problems.
tete 12y ago
Show me one real democracy. One place where the people's were the ones ruling, or at least a majority. It's not the case. I wouldn't even say that's a bad thing. I just think many things that are said about democracy, maybe the be pessimistic or optimistic comes from a perspective that seems extremely distant from reality. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean it like "the bad evil system. There is nothing we can do against it", but more in the sense that we can, say we want, but still don't do so, probably based on erroneous understanding lying deep in history scalping todays society. In that sense the article mentioning the "doing gardening" and the rejection of it is maybe the wrong way, because I think that the majority, probably even in an anarchistic sense is an extremely strong force. Whatever their reality, their according action is is status quo. That's why oppressive or totalitarian governments are so much into censorship. That's why for most of history objecting someone in a higher rank was punished so hard, even if it was simple words. They could give a direction for many. Maybe that's a way modern technologies, the very thing that allows this communication also prevents focus. The focus shifts away rather quickly. There is barely a long term view. Everything older than ten to five years is a distant history. In the now however there is too much information to comprehend. The view goes back to the last big event, like 9/11. And that's something the article talks about and seems accurate. It is something that made me wonder too. So many developments are said to have emerged from 9/11, but barely any actually have. ECHELON was there, the east-west and the middle-least conflicts were there. The NSA and it's mission to surveil the whole world was there. Secret pacts in these directions have emerged from World War 2, maybe even earlier. If you look back into history, thirty years things don't seem all too different. It reminds me of all the dystopian novells written after or in the time of such events, depicting how one could simply shift the focus of society. And we in the startup community, often dealing with marketing know that. It's the rapid focus shift, often mixed with surveillance, like when optimizing a registration funnel that creates an often not so real view of reality for the majority, whose reality you usually have to accept.

cstross 12y ago

You missed the European Parliament, which is elected (with elections taking place right now). The balance of power between the EC and the EP needs to be shifted towards the EP, and other reforms are essential -- but the EU is not intrinsically anti-democratic; the real problem is that the members are all (at least nominally, esp. in the case of Hungary) democracies, with parliaments jealous of delegating power to a higher authority, so the regional governments have deliberate policies of trying to keep the center weak and unaccountable to the polity.

aaronem 12y ago
No doubt you know the United States had a similar problem in their early days, and that nothing sufficed to resolve that conflict short of a half-decade of generally very ugly warfare. Here's hoping the "United States of Europe" so-called don't find themselves so afflicted. From what I hear, though, that seems unlikely; it sounds as though those charged with its assembly are, whether or not they consider it in these terms, attempting wholly to preëmpt the democratic phase, by not only skipping straight to the bureaucratic sclerosis, but actually designing said bureaucracy instead of letting it simply grow in its own fashion. It's an interesting idea, and probably the best chance they've got of avoiding the susceptibility to dangerous enthusiasms which is a young democracy's besetting flaw. On the other hand, it seems at least plausible that attempting to subsume into federalism a range of distinct polities each of which has centuries of history as an independent state, without hammering them together by main force as was eventually done in the American case, is a project doomed to ignominious failure. Whether it'll actually work and how well, I haven't the slightest, but I sure do look forward to finding out.
benaston 12y ago
I omitted to mention the European Parliament for the very reason that it is democratic and is not relevant to my point. The European Commission, a key part of the EU is not elected by the people of Europe, hence it's members cannot be removed directly by the people of Europe and hence the EU as it currently stands is inherently undemocratic. Given the lessons to be learned from the history of Europe, I find this surprising and concerning.

Zigurd 12y ago

> If you think there is any truth in this article, then real democracy becomes ever more important There is a lot of evidence it doesn't work, and may not be fixable. What then?

benaston 12y ago
That is not a solved question. There is a lot of evidence that democracy is deeply flawed, but there is no evidence for a better way of organising nations. Indeed there is plenty of evidence that when you take democracy away from people, you get popular uprisings, civil disobedience and ultimately, violence. Given that, democracy should be our first port of call. Research into more effective forms of governance should continue to be persued.

aaronem 12y ago

Democracy is an unstable isotope of government, with a short half-life; unless overthrown, it invariably decays into leaden bureaucracy, which generally comes as something of a relief to all involved. Skipping the democratic phase entirely, and going straight to bureaucracy, seems like it will save a lot of trouble and time. Also, "rules [being] made centrally and applied to diverse populations with different priorities" is a more or less inevitable failure mode of federalism, however administered. (In fact, it's arguably the point of federalism.) As can be seen in the brief but instructive history of the United States, the representative-democratic method of rule is no insulation against this trait of the federal republic; indeed, a federal system offers broader scope than any other for the periodic paroxysms of popular madness which beset any democracy. These produce schisms between sections of the polity, and as these injuries heal, they form keloid plaques of bureaucracy which not only help seal the immediate breach but also help buffer the polity against future democratic spasm. Such proliferation of nonfunctional tissue is harmful to the organism in the long term, but from the individual point of view, life in a moderately senescent bureaucracy is often preferable to life in a young, agile, athletic democracy, simply because the former offers a vastly reduced likelihood of major upheaval.

andyjohnson0 12y ago

" the European Commission is not elected by universal suffrage, but appointed" True, but they are appointed by governments that are themselves elected by universal suffrage.

benaston 12y ago
That is orthogonal to my point. With the current system you get Cathy Ashton and Barroso and the farce that is the Ukraine. If people in positions of significant power are not elected directly by the people then said people have no way to remove them from power. That is not democratic. The very fact that the EU is designed in this way speaks to the mindset of those in Brussels and while it might not concern you, it concerns me.
- andyjohnson0 12y ago
  It does concern me, and I agree that the commission has a problem of democratic accountability. I'm not sure that having directly elected commissioners would have prevented the mess in Ukraine, which is mainly caused by the complex motivations of varied and unpredictable actors. States bordering Russia have joined the EU/EEA before without problems.

tete 12y ago

Show me one real democracy. One place where the people's were the ones ruling, or at least a majority. It's not the case. I wouldn't even say that's a bad thing. I just think many things that are said about democracy, maybe the be pessimistic or optimistic comes from a perspective that seems extremely distant from reality. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean it like "the bad evil system. There is nothing we can do against it", but more in the sense that we can, say we want, but still don't do so, probably based on erroneous understanding lying deep in history scalping todays society. In that sense the article mentioning the "doing gardening" and the rejection of it is maybe the wrong way, because I think that the majority, probably even in an anarchistic sense is an extremely strong force. Whatever their reality, their according action is is status quo. That's why oppressive or totalitarian governments are so much into censorship. That's why for most of history objecting someone in a higher rank was punished so hard, even if it was simple words. They could give a direction for many. Maybe that's a way modern technologies, the very thing that allows this communication also prevents focus. The focus shifts away rather quickly. There is barely a long term view. Everything older than ten to five years is a distant history. In the now however there is too much information to comprehend. The view goes back to the last big event, like 9/11. And that's something the article talks about and seems accurate. It is something that made me wonder too. So many developments are said to have emerged from 9/11, but barely any actually have. ECHELON was there, the east-west and the middle-least conflicts were there. The NSA and it's mission to surveil the whole world was there. Secret pacts in these directions have emerged from World War 2, maybe even earlier. If you look back into history, thirty years things don't seem all too different. It reminds me of all the dystopian novells written after or in the time of such events, depicting how one could simply shift the focus of society. And we in the startup community, often dealing with marketing know that. It's the rapid focus shift, often mixed with surveillance, like when optimizing a registration funnel that creates an often not so real view of reality for the majority, whose reality you usually have to accept.