Talk:Democracy/Archive 3

This is an archive of discussion held sometime between January to May 2004.

---

Czaktisto's complaints/change requests

Discussion on content of the article:

"Gender equity has been recognized in other ways in other societies, however. The Iroquois Confederacy gave a strong political role to women as far back as its origins in the 12th century, although as in 19th century New Zealand, this was expressed as support for a specific male, not the right to sit in council. However, they like many Native American societies recognized rituals to allow post-menopausal or powerful widowed women to assume the role of a man - it is likely that at some point in its long history, the Confederacy permitted a full and formal role to women using some such provision. Records and dates are however incomplete."

I suggest that this paragraph be copied to an article about the Iroquois, since it refers to specifics of the social organization of that people, not the core issue of Democracy.

"Historically, the most direct democracies would include the New England town meeting, the political system of the ancient Greek city states and Oligarchy of Venice."

This phrase is innacurate due to being incomplete and mentioning an Oligarchy as being a form of "direct democracy". A direct quote from the Oligrachy page clearly demonstrates that this edit is not correct:

"Oligarchy is a form of government where most political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek for "few" and "rule". Many political theorists have argued that all societies are inevitably oligarchies no matter the supposed political system"

As such this phrase contains incorrect information and should be removed.

Generally the Democracy page is not written in a encyclopedial way and contains many bias (albeit contradictory, which is a form of plurality). In my opinion the Democracy page should be re-written with an NPOV stance and removing some parts that are clearly not related to the subject.

Any ideas on how to do this? Should we have a vote? ;) -- Czaktisto

What are your complaints, exactly? — No-One Jones (talk) 16:02, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have 2 specific change requests (which you listed), and 1 generic comment about the lack of NPOV in the way the page is written. The generic comment is likely to be less consensual than the 2 specific requests I have.

I just wrote those so that I could see if someone would object to the removal or change in the phrases that I commented. -- Czaktisto, February 3, 2004

Democracy

The term Democracy:

The essence of the term is absolute and thus not subject to qualification by other terms (i.e., direct or indirect democracy). This position is articulated in the following reference:

http://www.New-Byzantium.org / Table of Contents / An Analysis.

Mark Athanasios C. Karras

• I understand, but disagree. Very few terms are absolute, often because the things they describe are not atomic. From infinity to unique to, indeed, the atom, the use of qualified modifiers to circumscribe the meaning of the absolute modifier is helpful, and often required for understanding. Also, these terms have widely accepted meanings, each of which could garner its own wiki article. Chrisvls 22:48, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Democracy and franchise

Just one short comment to the part about retricted franchise. Note that a dictatorship is actually an extreme case of democracy, with franchise restricted to just one person. --Kpalion 22:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Democracy definition

Democracy = majority rule, direct or indirect.

Oligarchy = minority rule by 2 or more, but less than a majority.

Monarchy = minority rule by 1 (aka dictatorships - Hitler, Stalin, etc.)

Such political regimes were all well known by the ancient Greeks.

The Congress, all State legislatures and many local governments in the U.S.A. are very dangerous elective oligarchies due to the various ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders involved, plurality nominations in about 40 States (top 2 runoff primaries in about 10 States) and plurality elections.

Just over half the votes in just over half the districts produces about 25 percent ANTI-Democracy rule in various gerrymander regimes.

The various at large systems in many local governments are also anti-democratic by not letting 49.99 percent minorities get any *real* representation.

A *democratic* legislative body exists ONLY because ALL of the Electors/voters can not assemble in person in most cases and enact legislation by majority rule.

Democracy NOW - via proportional representation -- before it is too late. NO primaries are needed with various p.r. methods.

Proposed refactoring

I suggest to refactor this article in this manner :

Definitions

A definition of what democracy means in the general sense and all other meanings.

History

A historical perspective, which should be a summary of a longer history of democracy.

Democratic systems

All types of democracy, theoretical and real. (Already plenty of that in the current article).

Democracy and politics

An explanation of what constitute a contemporary democratic system, ie, what institutions exist in a political system that call itself democratic. We could consider Robert Dahl's criteria for evaluating a democratic system:

1. Equality of votes
2. Effective participation
3. An enlightened comprehension of the problems at hand
4. Possibility to control the political agenda
5. Social inclusion

And the 7 institutions needed to meet these criteria:

1. Elections of officials
2. Free and just elections
3. Inclusive suffrage
4. The right to apply for an elective post
5. Freedom of expression
6. Access to alternative information sources
7. Freedom of association

State of democracy in the world

What democratic systems are in use in which countries right now.

What do you all think? -- Mathieugp 04:42, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good idea, the current article is not very good. The definition section definetly needs expansion, it even lacks mentions of procedural view of democracy (the one that concentrates on democracy as a type of government, like definitions of Schumpeter, Huntington, Lipset) and political view of democracy (aka substantial, the one that asks in whose name and for what purpose the power is held) (see works of Dahl, Gurr, Sartori). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Seems sensible. Although I would consider another section about historical patterns or strengths and weaknesses that most commentators have made about democracy. Off the top of my head, the challenges would include: 1) The natural emergance of parties, as decried in Athens, Washington's farewell address, and more modern debates; 2) The concern of mob rule; 3) The use of public funds to sway the electorate; 4) the use of private funds to sway the electorate. Strengths would flow directly from the attributes described above, and could include: 1) Degree of participation; 2) Directness of legitimacy; 3) Meritocracy, or at least, the demise of rule by direct family descent; 4) Ideology, and increasing practice of, equality. Thoughts? Chrisvls 23:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Direct Democracy

Am not a great fan of US politics in general but from what I could gather here from the problems facing Arnie, the state of California seems to practice a very direct democracy with referendums. Isn't this the best known modern example rather than citing a parish council? --(talk)BozMo 11:53, 13 May 2004 (UTC)