Talk:Democracy/Archive 5

Proposed refactoring

See detail in Archive 3

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)

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)

However, it should be noted that the definition used to classify countries as "democratic" was crafted by Europeans and is directly influenced by the dominating cultures in those countries; care should be taken when applying it to other cultures that are tribal in nature and do not have the same historical background as the current "democratic" countries.

This paragraph I find highly subjective. There are democratic states representing every religion and on every continent, most of them closely follow the so-called "European variant" mentioned here. Some undemocratic states have however maintained their system by claiming that "our culture is incompatible with the Western one, therefor we cannot have a democracy". Regardless of whether you think Western-style democracies are the greatest thing in the world or not, or whether you think they originated in the West, there are a lot of people who hold the POV that democracy is a natural state of mankind, compatible with human nature and not with certain "cultures", and that the values of democracy have been infused in European culture, not the other way around (if at all). Anyone know how the paragraph could be altered, to reflect both POVs? Should it be removed outright? Should it be left untouched? Am I a nutball who has just read the "Open Society and Its Enemies" one time too many? --Gabbe 17:54, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Gabbe -- it is never "nutty" to read Karl Popper -- he is wonderfully clear and often right. --Christofurio 23:14, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

What about this for annoyingly POV, though?

"They" [opponents of democracy] "hold this view" [that majorities can be dangerous] "despite the fact that majorities and minorities are different on every issue—that is, persons in the majority usually take care to not oppress a minority, lest they ultimately are part of a minority on a future democratic decision." Despite that fact? Hmmmm. --Christofurio 23:14, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

So you suggest that majorities and minorites are the same on any given issue? -- Stevietheman 15:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that it isn't a FACT that they are different on EVERY issue.

For example, a relatively affluent minority can find itself on the losing side again and again, its affluence making it a target for the formation of coalitions from which it is excluded. This is sometimes true of ethnically Chinese in other East Asian countries and has all too often been true of Jews in European history. Who is the "majority" and who is the "minority" for relevant purposes stays the same across time, and the mere possibility that it may someday change is a poor preventative for oppression.

I may be wrong in the analysis implicit in the above paragraph, but to say I am wrong as a simple matter of "fact" would obviously be POV. --Christofurio 14:35, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll go along with that. But note that my attempt was to make a POV paragraph into NPOV, and my first attempt was admittedly sloppy. That said, the scenario you describe would certainly be a concern in an illiberal democracy, but in a modern liberal democracy, votes on issues that target a protected minority (religion, race, etc.) wouldn't be allowed in the first place. -- Stevietheman 15:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That, of course, is not true.  The removed text should be restored to the article. -- Stevietheman 23:34, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the text to remove POV. It's important for this article to note that not everyone holds the view that democracy = majoritarianism. -- Stevietheman 23:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To step away from symantics and politics for a moment... democracy originally was practiced directly (i.e. participants vote on individual issues... not leaders that will make all their decisions for the next four years). Just because we happen to have representative type governments today (that indeed have democratic elements) does NOT make it the same. I can call blue red eventually... and just because everyone agrees... it does not make them the same. I stand by my original changes that there is significant debate. Furthermore you changed it back without offering proof to your stance. Please point me to a reputable study that supports your stance rather than just piorii reasoning. Lack of evidence (for or against) would support eliminating the line entirely rether than just supporting your personal stance.

Here a couple of reputable examples of opinions that differ from your own. The first link is to an article reviewed by Richard M. Pious, M.A., Ph.D.Professor, Graduate Faculties, Columbia University, Barnard College. Pay special attention to

" Although often used interchangeably, the terms democracy and republic are not synonymous. Both systems delegate the power to govern to their elected representatives. In a republic, however, these officials are expected to act on their own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country. The officials in a democracy more generally and directly reflect the known or ascertained views of their constituents, sometimes subordinating their own judgment."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575112/Democracy.html#p2

This second link is to a speech to the U.S. senate and much of the reason as to why I believe you are misinformed.

http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/speech-repub.htm

  Again. You don't have to agree with me.... but unless you provide empirical evidence to support your stand.. it's a non-fact that shouldn't be included. I will continue to challengit until you do so or until it is phrased acceptably.

According to most political scientists today (and most common English speakers), the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it be direct or representative.

Look in any dictionary for the contemporary usage of "democracy":

From http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=democracy :

1. democracy -- (the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives)

2. democracy, republic, commonwealth -- (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them)

3. majority rule, democracy -- (the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group)

From http://www.aph.gov.au/find/glossary.htm :

1. a way of governing a country in which the people elect representatives to form a government on their behalf
2. a country with such a government
3. the idea that everyone in a country has equal rights

From http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/34/d0123400.html :

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Show me any major dictionary which does not include "elected representative" government (or some variation) as a type of democracy. older≠wiser 03:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A dictionary has many uses for a word that are not always applicable for a specific example.

Thus Dictionary.com defines Cat as....

A small carnivorous mammal (Felis catus or F. domesticus) domesticated since early times as a catcher of rats and mice and as a pet and existing in several distinctive breeds and varieties. Any of various other carnivorous mammals of the family Felidae, which includes the lion, tiger, leopard, and lynx. The fur of a domestic cat. Informal. A woman who is regarded as spiteful. Slang. A person, especially a man. A player or devotee of jazz music. A cat-o'-nine-tails. A catfish. Nautical. A cathead. A device for raising an anchor to the cathead. A catboat. A catamaran.

Are all these the same?

Furthermore dictionaries are used as quick reference material that highlight usage... but not under the scope a professional would look at it. Stealing to a lawyer is not the same as that identified under a dictionary because it is too vague.

In the italicized words above, I mistakenly inserted the previous version. The words I intended to use there are In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it be direct or representative. I really don't care what the majority of political scientists think. It's largely irrelevant. In contemporary usage, there democracy is a large, baggy concept that include elected representative forms of government. The finer distinctions between these forms, including historical usage, are made clear in this article. older≠wiser 03:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  It's good that you don't care what the majority of political scientists think... because I don't care about popular contemporary usage... which is rhetoric (not contant) driven. Although I still think it's still a bit misleading, I suppose the lines in question are now vague enough to compromise.

Just something I thought about that would make me a little happier on this point. Would you be adverse to the addition of the word "popular" between the beginning words "In" and "contemporary"?

i.e. 'In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people...yada..yada

Please add this if you think it would be more fair to my point... which I think we see eye to eye on

I support leaving something like the original text in, as indeed "representative democracy" isn't a term that somebody just coined, but instead it's an indisputable form of democracy. I don't think empirical evidence is required here to support an overwhelmingly obvious point that appears in all dictionaries. -- Stevietheman 04:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

  Your original statement remains unproven...that MOST political scientists would agree with your usage of the word. Your statement is specific "political scientists" not "dictionary writers" and remains unproven. You should not include a non-fact for political motivations just as I wouldn't argue the point that popular contemporary usage includes both rep. and direct. 

 No matter how much I detest it.... a quick poll of dictionaries (as you said) would prove its' factual nature. 

  If you wish to prove your point... the onus is on you to provide evidence of a scientific poll of political scientists that agree with your point (with the question phrased in the correct manner).... not on me to disprove your point.

  At least then I couldn't argue your point... although I could still marvel at their incompetence.

It's not _my_ original statement. It was text already existing in the article. And it's just fact. Stop trying to create an argument where there is none. -- Stevietheman 12:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

  I would then say we have different tolerance levels and precision of what constitutes 
a "fact' then. (To me) nothing is "just a fact". Unfortunately the laws of deminishing returns
forces us to provide some sort of final litmus test of empirical evidence to allow us proceed
in choices and definitions. Your "conclusive" evidence is simply a dictionary. I might as well
learn physics from one then... using the same reasoning. 

 I choose a more rigerous model of truth in this particular case because the point is 
important and fundamental to truly grasping what democracy represents in most peoples 
minds.... which I believe (unscientifically) to be the "the will of the people".... not "vote 
for your oligarchy". If not... then let's re-educate the public so at least they are properly 
informed as to what their government represents. Republics have their good points too.

 Going off a little on a personal political tangent.... I've heard arguments that (pure if you
wish) democracy is in fact undesirable since theoretically the majority could vote your assets
and rights away. This of course makes no sense since representative type governments can
easily do the same thing... with much less input. Furthermore, it is often also argued that
logistics make direct democracy impossible. I would think that something called technoogy 
may provide help provide a solution to these problems. 

  I find those that wish to catergorize direct and indirect democracy... under the same umbrella.... wish to eat their moral/political/philosophical cake and have it too. If their is no major differences then why do our systems lag in reform to eliminate the causes of any confusion or suspection?

  You can't have it both ways. It makes no sense.

---

I just happen to pop in. Seems to me this article is one of the messiest in Wikipedia. Lucky are those who understand something.

Sadly, as it is a result of democratic participation, it gives the worst possible image of democracy ;-)).

Hope it will get better. What I suggest is that:

• somebody starts it all again by giving a basic simple description of democracy (KISS - keep it simple and short), and only the main differentiation criteria between the main types of democracy, without any comment.
• and that another article be the receptacle of the overflow, under the name "Types of democracies". Here creativity and controversies will have their battle ground ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 18:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

"Sadly, as it is a result of democratic participation, it gives the worst possible image of democracy ;-)). "

 Without a doubt democracy is extremely messy... butI wouldn't be that strong. It's part and 
parcel of coming to decisions. Sadly when politics and reason collide.... reason often suffers 
but why not make specific corrections to the article rather than just suggest general 
principles (which most here probably would agree with you). 

You might not find it so easy to define then. Its' no wonder so many people don't believe 
democratic processes should define symantics.

I've taken the plunge and made some quite large changes. I moved lots of sections about varients of democracy into a new page 'democracy (varieties)'. I am about to create a section for the famous quotes. I hope my changes are welcome. Barnaby dawson 11:14, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good job, Barnaby --Pgreenfinch 17:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second this. Brilliant work! -- Stevietheman 19:46, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why is neutrality disputed

Could somebody explain me, why the neutrality is disputed. I do not see the point and removed the tag. Gangulf 13:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

146.124.141.250 added the POV message. Let 146.124.141.250 justify why the article is POV on this talk page. Otherwise I don't think a POV message should be put up. Barnaby dawson 14:09, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since only one anonymous person disputes the neutrality, but was actually adding lots of POV text, there's no need for the tag. The article was fine before he started polluting it. -- Stevietheman 14:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Somebody should go to work on this, "Proponents of democracy argue that just as there is a special constitutional process for constitutional changes, there could be a distinction between legislation which would be handled through liberal democracy and the modification of constitutional rights which would have a more deliberative procedure there attached, and thereby less vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority." Do these proponents have names? There is too much "some Xists say A, to which some anti-Xists say B, to which the Xists can respond blah blah blah" especially in all the ideologically sensitive articles in wiki. In this case, it touches on a very sensitive point -- which constitutional rights need how much extra deliberation and why? It would be good to stay grounded in what actual named theorists had to say on point. --Christofurio 15:08, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

The main effect on the stature of Democracy is not in the name of the ancestors but the follow through of the people and the way they operate. To recomend that the democracy is false would be to revert over 1200 years of Roman genuity and the people of America.

Americocentrism

During the summer, when I've been rather absent from the world of computers and Internet, this article has undergone some changes. In particular does the following strike me (a European former student of political science) as somewhat disturbing:

Traditionally the purpose of democracy is to prevent tyranny (the accumulation of too much authority in the hands of one or a few). That is, democracy rests on a balance of giving enough power for what Hamilton called "vigorous and energetic government" and avoiding giving out so much power that it becomes abused. Democracy often aims in practice for the "least worst" of alternatives. By creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, by assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. Democracy is related then to the idea of constitutional government, setting limits beyond which a current majority in government may not step.

I am however not interested in puting work into changes that get promptly reverted. My experiences of Wikipedia has in this respect been rather mixed. Therefore I would like to ask those contributors to this article, who have more of an emotional attachment to it than I have, if this is a wording that you are perfectly happy with, and if not, in what direction you would expect this paragraph to evolve.

/Tuomas 07:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You'll need to be more specific, the article, as a whole, is a mess. Stirling Newberry 08:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that the democracy article has been moving in a good direction in that it has become more objective, it has lost some of the 'alternative visions' of democracy that were bunging it up. In particular I think he opening paragraph is now quite well thought out.

The paragraph that you refer to has changed in the last few days from a more considered version (it also seems to ignore democracies with no constitution). I was debating whether to change it back. But I decided not to as its in a pros-cons section. I think perhaps the pros-cons section ought to come last or be moved to another page. I'm also not very happy with other opinion mascerading as information in other sections. I created pros-cons originally to put some opinion sections into but maybe the time has come to properly NPOV it or remove it. Barnaby dawson 14:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)