Democracy in Action

[Adelle]

In this semester we are supposed to be studying Democracy in Social Studies. We will be looking at the historical development of Democracy as well as its mechanisms and political and social values. At the end of this we will be expected to produce an essay addressing some aspect of the topic. Since I have nothing better to do (and my father insists I do something other than play on the computer) I thought I would get a jump on the process (for once) and do a little real time research. (Of course the last time I tried this I only got a C+. Lesson: find out what the teacher wants to believe before providing information that messes with her worldview.)

OK, so here’s the angle. Is the control, manipulation and suppression of information contrary to an accepted ideology in order to insure the maintenance of “good order and discipline” within the Democratic system (in whatever form it may take) an acceptable strategy of “good government” if it insures the survival of the nation and the continued freedom, security and prosperity of the citizens within that nation. All forms of Democracy (Republic, Dominion, Parliamentary Monarchy, Confederation, Theocratic Democracy, etc) are to be considered in this discussion regardless of the political process used (multi-party, two party, single party, independent representation) to achieve it. Though I expect and appreciate contributions from forum members living in long established Democracies, I am particularly looking forward to contributions from forum members from Russia and China (if such exist) as they are just emerging (though different means) from a more repressive political structure. (Less ‘larger than life’ examples, such as an identifiable culture or organization, corporation, club or forum, can be used, in microcosm, where appropriate to provide evidence within a system people can actually rap their brains around where these may reflect the mindset of a national government or its agencies (such as the FCC).)

Although I am looking for real opinions (backed by fact) from real people in real places, lets try to play nice and have a positive, meaningful discussion focusing on the subject.

The floor is now open; the chair recognizes the Right Honourable ……..

[The Terrible Sweal]

First, what is "Theocratic Democracy"?

Is the control, manipulation and suppression of information ... an acceptable strategy of “good government” if it insures the survival of the nation and the continued freedom, security and prosperity of the citizens within that nation.

1. It is doutful that suppression of information is a consistently effective means of "good government".

2. It is questionable whether a government with the authority to supress information can qualify as providing for the freedom of its citizens.

[Adelle]

First, what is "Theocratic Democracy"?

Sorry, I guess that would be a Theocracy but I wanted it to be clear that it would be democratic rather than totalitarian. I am not sure if Iran, which is the only present day Theocracy I know of, would apply but "religion and the government are allied" there and people do get to vote.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think the concepts of theocracy and democracy are mutually exclusive.

A theocracy has authority and legitimacy arise out of the ostensible deity, and places power/rule in the hands of the purported representatives of that deity.

In a democracy on the other hand, authority and legitimacy arise from the consensus of the citizens, and power/rule are placed to effect this principle.

While it is possible that in democracy the vast preponderance of citizens might share a religion, or that a theocracy might have the consent of a majority of its people (albeit untested), neither of these cases bridges the qualitative distance between these two political systems.

[Adelle]

Well, I tried to stay out of the discussion, but I guess I have to stoke the fire.

Re: Theocratic Democracy. What you say is quite true, however a democracy with an established religion could be considered a Theocratic democracy. This could be of a type where ONLY members of the priesthood are allowed to be members of government and are elected by the general populous (usually members of said religion) or it could be that only members of the established religion could run for office. I see Theocracy to be a government of priests (this is usually a patriarchal system) whose position is given or taken away by the head priest, something like a monarchy of priests except that higher priests might also be elected to their positions by a council as in the recent election of the Pope. England went through a process after Henry-of-the-many-wives that dictated that only members of the established church could hold or be granted office (though some special allowances were made). This switched back and forth for a while causing a lot of hardship, death and destruction. At the beginning this was a strict, near-absolute Monarchy but eventually developed into a Parliamentary Monarchy but which still held to religious restrictions, though things stopped flipping between Catholic and Anglican after William III (I say Anglican instead of Protestant as many protestant sects were also restricted prior to Wm). Democracy was a long process as the King didn’t trust the Estates (creating a long running battle between absolute monarchy and parliamentary monarchy) and the Estates didn’t trust each other. To add to the confusion, the members of the various Estates were also members of different religions and sects and also members of different national groups. In modern times, Iran seems to be changing from a Theocracy to a Theocratic Democracy with religion and democracy fighting for dominance. The Mullahs like being in power and having things ordered as they like it while the people don’t like being pious all the time (similar to England in the 1660’s). I guess a little bit of sin (free expression) is good for a society.

Anyway, absolute monarchy didn’t work so well for England, France or Russia ending in bloody revolutions. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires (historical and religious enemies) survived until they lost WWI. Various representative democracies were tried based upon the Republics that rose and fell in Italy during and after the Renaissance including English Commonwealth (based upon Puritan, Protestant religion), the Dutch Republic (which still had an aristocracy and was a collection of city states) and the United States of America (which took great pains to separate ‘Church and State’ and ‘State and Military’ so that it didn’t go the way of Cromwell’s Republic). One of the types of democracy not often discussed, but often assumed, is Totalitarian Democracy or ‘majority rule’. Once the majority has decided, the minority has a choice of submitting (hoping to increase their numbers) or emigrating to live as they see fit. Unfortunately the majority sometime decides that a minority idea that has been voted down is therefore illegal and continuing to present that idea, even in private, may also be illegal (i.e. The heterosexual majority decides that practicing homosexuality is illegal but also decides that saying homosexuality is anything other than a deviance is also illegal). This has sometimes occurred in the US but was more pronounced in ‘Iron Curtain’ countries and certain supposed democracies in Africa, Arabia and Asia and often ends up with the minority (or minorities) and the majority trying to destroy each other (Iraq, the Balkans, Rwanda, etc).

All of this is a simplification of the research I’ve done so far.

[gradkiss]

In this semester we are supposed to be studying Democracy in Social Studies.  We will be looking at the historical development of Democracy as well as its mechanisms and political and social values.  At the end of this we will be expected to produce an essay addressing some aspect of the topic.  Since I have nothing better to do (and my father insists I do something other than play on the computer) I thought I would get a jump on the process (for once) and do a little real time research.  (Of course the last time I tried this I only got a C+.  Lesson: find out what the teacher wants to believe before providing information that messes with her worldview.)

OK, so here’s the angle.  Is the control, manipulation and suppression of information contrary to an accepted ideology in order to insure the maintenance of “good order and discipline” within the Democratic system (in whatever form it may take) an acceptable strategy of “good government” if it insures the survival of the nation and the continued freedom, security and prosperity of the citizens within that nation.  All forms of Democracy (Republic, Dominion, Parliamentary Monarchy, Confederation, Theocratic Democracy, etc) are to be considered in this discussion regardless of the political process used (multi-party, two party, single party, independent representation) to achieve it.  Though I expect and appreciate contributions from forum members living in long established Democracies, I am particularly looking forward to contributions from forum members from Russia and China (if such exist) as they are just emerging (though different means) from a more repressive political structure.  (Less ‘larger than life’ examples, such as an identifiable culture or organization, corporation, club or forum, can be used, in microcosm, where appropriate to provide evidence within a system people can actually rap their brains around where these may reflect the mindset of a national government or its agencies (such as the FCC).)

Although I am looking for real opinions (backed by fact) from real people in real places, lets try to play nice and have a positive, meaningful discussion focusing on the subject.

The floor is now open; the chair recognizes the Right Honourable ……..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do know this, a democracy as ours should make a very good impression in the world if we would just know what the word justice is, we as one on one would agree if it were just us and two of us we would deal with the immunities and the priveleges of each of jsu the two of us, the world would know we are that person as 330 million of just us, we seem to punish ourselves that way when the arguement is just between the two , the 14th amendment to the constitution and the bill of right say, the due peocess of the law need be there to size propert or to disparge anyone living taking of anyones liberty and the bill also says no state shall make or allow any law that would disparge or remove any immunity or privelege of an american citizen, that would mean the court need noty decide the two would decide the punishment and the details of such, the 9th would prove money would construe the very process it would take each of us to walk and not construe the sight of each other as we walked to get to that court to hold the debate between just two of us, money would prove too to be charged with the destruction of the veiw and the sught and the ills tyhat are tried each day in our courts an any state we walk into, so we do have a democracy that will work if we follow that law we have the bill of right are that law the freedom of speech is all the freedoms thaty are needed to have even one say or hear anyone one in our country need not say we are not the share of each other with the 100 perdcent vote we share but do we know we send each man to jail with the vote proven, and each man or child is that same citizen same flesh to flesh the very same flesh that walked this earth the very first time anyone walked this earth and I will not put any of us in any jail with the perfection of the laws we have here and the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment and the declaration of independence that we are declare eqaul endowed by the creator and unliable we are a with our birth here eqaul we are we the people... I will noty take that from anyone....George

[The Terrible Sweal]

Re: Theocratic Democracy.  What you say is quite true, however a democracy with an established religion could be considered a Theocratic democracy.  This could be of a type where ONLY members of the priesthood are allowed to be members of government and are elected by the general populous (usually members of said religion) or it could be that only members of the established religion could run for office. 

I don't think you are really talking about a democracy in most of those situations.

[mcqueen625]

In a democracy on the other hand, authority and legitimacy arise from the consensus of the citizens, and power/rule are placed to effect this principle.

So what would you call what we have in Canada when we have an elected government that has allowed an appointed, and unaccountable judiciary to make law, and order the elected politician's to fix it in a certain amount of time. Myself I would call that anything but democratic. In fact it qualifies in many respects as a sictatorship.

[The Terrible Sweal]

In a democracy on the other hand, authority and legitimacy arise from the consensus of the citizens, and power/rule are placed to effect this principle.

So what would you call what we have in Canada when we have an elected government that has allowed an appointed, and unaccountable judiciary to make law, and order the elected politician's to fix it in a certain amount of time.

The way you view the situation is not, in my opinion, correct. The judges are appointed effectively the same way the Governor General and cabinet ministers are appointed: the PM (i.e. the democratically chosen government leader) appoints them. This is democracy because the PM is chosen democratically and constituitionally these are powers accorded that position.

The judges accountability is more of a problem. They are not quite completely free to go off on their own hobbyhorses most of the time because they are intensely concerned with their reputations as legalists.

Unfortunately, it is a very difficult problem to solve because they courts must be independent in order to fulfill their purpose.

In Canada the Supreme Court's constitutional jurisdiction is theoretically unlimited, except for Charter matters where the notwithstanding clause is available.

[I Miss Trudeau]

So what would you call what we have in Canada when we have an elected government that has allowed an appointed, and unaccountable judiciary to make law, and order the elected politician's to fix it in a certain amount of time.

This "Canada" exists in another universe, I think.