Is democracy a cultural dead end?

[UndercoverElephant]

Democracy is a relatively recent invention, and though us westerners are very attached to it it is not clear whether it has a long-term future. The problems are all too obvious -- politicians who know they have to face the electorate cannot see past the next election, and are extremely reluctant to speak inconvenient truths or implement unpopular policies, however necessary they might be. Would China have been able to enact a one child policy if it was a democracy? I don't think so. Would the Chinese people even vote to have a democratic system if the CCP held a referendum on the subject? I' not sure they would. It is the CCP which has adopted "ecological civilisation" as a goal, not any western country. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_civilization)

I have a thought experiment. Let's imagine some higher power (benevolent aliens, God, whatever) decides that the people of Powerswitch should be put in charge of civilisation (of a sovereign state, not of the whole planet). We have spent a long time mulling over the problems, and now we have a chance to decide which direction to send civilisation in. It seems to me we have to make a fundamental decision about the future of democracy. We can either try to fix it, both by designing the "perfect" way it should work (presumably some type of PR?) and by educating the public about science, ecology, philosophy, degrowth economics, etc... Or we could come to the conclusion that however well designed the electoral system is, and however hard we try to educate people, the problems will persist: people will still vote in their own personal interest rather than that of society in general, lots of people will still be stupid and resistant to our attempts to educate them, and the politicians will still be obsessed with the short term and completely incapable of speaking the truth (unless it suits them). We could go another way instead, and implement an eco-authoritarian one party state. Maybe we could also abolish existing religions and create some sort of ecological political-religious system. In other words, instead of educating people we could find a better way to brainwash them instead. Except there is a problem with this too, in that once you dismantle democracy then you may not be able to get rid of whoever ends up in charge, any that could be potentially much worse than any elected government.

What do you recommend we do? Try to fix democracy, or give up and design a non-democratic eco-authoritarian system instead?

Or is there a third way I haven't thought of?

[dustiswhatweare]

The problem is that as a species we are not capable of making long term decisions by which I mean decades and centuries. Have as many internal agonies as you like over doing the 'right' thing, it'll ALWAYS come down to doing the thing that will give short term comfort and long term discomfort rather than the reverse. We do not like change. We fear the 'other'. It isn't that we can't see what good and bad choices are, which we might define as choices that enable us to take care of our environment and thus automatically take care of ourselves.

It's an implacably hostile universe. The only place we know of that we can physically survive in without extensive and very complicated modification is here. For all practical purposes there will never be anywhere else. How we govern ourselves is pathetically 'lizard brain'. We are not complete and it doesn't look like we are ever going to be. Everything we do is built on the shifting sands of our intellectual inadequacy.

[UndercoverElephant]

How we govern ourselves is pathetically 'lizard brain'. We are not complete and it doesn't look like we are ever going to be. Everything we do is built on the shifting sands of our intellectual inadequacy.

Sounds like you are saying you'd tell the benevolent aliens / God that human civilisation cannot be fixed, so it doesn't matter whether we try to fix democracy or go for eco-authoritarian. You're abstaining, right? You are saying that only biological evolution can "finish the job", yes?

[dustiswhatweare]

No, not abstaining, hoping against all available evidence that we can pull ourselves together. Important to remember we are programmed to never quit however hopeless things look (they do). In the meantime, I propose myself as benevolent dictator.

[UndercoverElephant]

No, not abstaining, hoping against all available evidence that we can pull ourselves together. Important to remember we are programmed to never quit however hopeless things look (they do). In the meantime, I propose myself as benevolent dictator.

OK....so I am asking you to choose. You're on the advisory panel appointed by the benevolent aliens. They want to know whether we should try to fix democracy, or give up on it and try to invent a good sort of eco-authoritarianism. Something "better" than democracy. We can't go for both, because they are fundamentally incompatible.

[PS_RalphW]

The problem with democracy is that not everybody is interested in the bigger picture. This is partly down to (lack of ) education, but also it is because the current controllers of society make active participation in decision making almost impossible. The last time I protested was in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, which was clearly stupid and illegal, and happened anyway, in spite of overwhelming popular opposition. I realised that the amount of time I could contribute given my need to work and support my family was not going to make any difference at all to a system that only pretended to be democratic, so I changed my focus towards making my life as low impact an sustainable as I could .

Putin has made a social contract with the Russian people, stay out of politics and let me run the country, and I will make life generally better for you. It has worked well over the last 20 years before he make his current stupid mistake to invade Ukraine. Democracy is now totally dead in Russia, as the state and legal system and media are all totally controlled by Putin. Most Russians still support him, because they do not know any reason not to, even now.

The Western model of democracy is not being destroyed by too little information, but too much media content, most of which is anti educational and designed to control through emotion and Pavlovian response. There are too many actors viewing for attention and 99% of them simply want your money and will use any level of psychology or deceit to get it. Those educated in the period when critical thinking was still encouraged can see through most of it, but the vast majority now are just too preoccupied with fitting in and not getting evicted or declared bankrupt or finding the cash for their kids next meal.

I do not think Western democracy is compatible in the current economic model, it will take at least a generation of reformed education, land ownership and economic less inequality for it to regain a foothold in society. That is a generation we don’t have.

[UndercoverElephant]

The problem with democracy is that not everybody is interested in the bigger picture. This is partly down to (lack of ) education, but also it is because the current controllers of society make active participation in decision making almost impossible. The last time I protested was in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, which was clearly stupid and illegal, and happened anyway, in spite of overwhelming popular opposition. I realised that the amount of time I could contribute given my need to work and support my family was not going to make any difference at all to a system that only pretended to be democratic, so I changed my focus towards making my life as low impact an sustainable as I could .

I think we should not mix up a poor version of democracy with no version of democracy at all. In the UK we can protest, and we can vote to remove a government we don't like. Neither is possible in Russia, China or Iran. The fact that we can only replace the government we don't like with one we dislike marginally less doesn't mean it isn't democracy. There are important differences between even our poor version of democracy and authoritarianism. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Putin has made a social contract with the Russian people, stay out of politics and let me run the country, and I will make life generally better for you.

Most contracts are voluntarily agreed to by both parties. That did not happen in Russia.

The Western model of democracy is not being destroyed by too little information, but too much media content, most of which is anti educational and designed to control through emotion and Pavlovian response. There are too many actors viewing for attention and 99% of them simply want your money and will use any level of psychology or deceit to get it. Those educated in the period when critical thinking was still encouraged can see through most of it, but the vast majority now are just too preoccupied with fitting in and not getting evicted or declared bankrupt or finding the cash for their kids next meal.

I do not think Western democracy is compatible in the current economic model, it will take at least a generation of reformed education, land ownership and economic less inequality for it to regain a foothold in society. That is a generation we don’t have.

I agree with all this, but it doesn't answer my question. If you were on a panel tasked with fixing our civilisation, would you opt for an improved version of democracy or would you abandon it as hopeless and go for some sort of benevolent attempt at non-democracy?

I am trying to answer the question "What is wrong with civilisation, and what would a better civilisation look like?" and I am faced with a fork in the road. You have to choose whether to educate and go for democracy or to "brainwash" and go for benevolent authoritarianism (either political or political+religious/philosophical).

[johnny]

I agree with all this, but it doesn't answer my question. If you were on a panel tasked with fixing our civilisation, would you opt for an improved version of democracy or would you abandon it as hopeless and go for some sort of benevolent attempt at non-democracy?

I am trying to answer the question "What is wrong with civilisation, and what would a better civilisation look like?" and I am faced with a fork in the road. You have to choose whether to educate and go for democracy or to "brainwash" and go for benevolent authoritarianism (either political or political+religious/philosophical).

A binary solution set can make things look easy (and probably wrong), but in your question go for democracy.

Unfortunately, would you like to be killed by beheading or run through the heart with a sword is a similar question, and calls into question the question, not the same consequences arriving from two different but irrelevant answers (dead in my example, shitty governing in yours).

The reason why is because people are people. Find a way to change them (and no, I don't equate that with education), and you can change the world. Otherwise everything is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic as humans keep being...human.

[BritDownUnder]

Autocracy is fine when things are going well, like the Russian oil boom and taking Crimea in 2014, or the Chinese 40 years of growth since 1979. When the economic growth stops is when things begin to get interesting. The UK might be the first country to see it but it will happen to all countries eventually. I think the UK is handling things well at the moment. People are on strike for sure and prices are going up but I see sign of people wanting a powerful leader to sort it all out. Japan is the same. They are stagnating but staying democratic and showing no desire to invade anyone right now.

[Mark]

I used to work for a family owned SME...., the owner used to ask us to view him as a 'benign dictator'....
Very few internal meetings, no Trade Unions, no HR Department, his decision was final...
Seemed to work OK on one level (profit, efficiency, pay levels), but many staff felt disempowered...
The choice that was always presented was 'his way or the highway'...

On a national level, I guess your view would depend on whether you got a 'benign dictator' that you broadly agreed with or not...
More things would probably get done...., but the people would feel disempowered, which would eventually leads to mass opposition...
Also, you'd need to think about succession planning, or we'd end up with a situation like the Monarchy, or the Kims in North Korea...

Democracy is also highly flawed though..., particularly 1 vote every 5 years on the basis of manifestos with minimal details...
But we've also recently seen that referenda are fraught with difficulty too (Brexit, Scottish Independence) - a binary yes/no leads to a lot of discontent for the losers, particularly if the result was close and the winning option doesn't turn out to be delivered as promised...

So, what about decentralising as much power as possible to each country/region of the UK - seems like a good idea...?
It's the local elections on 5th May, but how many on here are going to be bothered to vote....?

I don't blame those that don't - since the Tories have been in, Local Authorities have been starved of cash by central government - so, whatever 'colour' the Council is, they're all left grappling with a crippling social care need which gobbles the majority of their budget which then leaves very little money to deal with the whole miriad of other local issues that people want addressing, which then leads to frustration and apathy...

The first step to restoring local politics would therefore seem to be by making the national government responsible for the crisis in care (by merging/integrating it with the NHS...?)... I seem to remember BoJo promising this was his #1 priority when he first stood on the steps of Downing Street, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then...

[UndercoverElephant]

Democracy is also highly flawed though..., particularly 1 vote every 5 years on the basis of manifestos with minimal details...
But we've also recently seen that referenda are fraught with difficulty too (Brexit, Scottish Independence) - a binary yes/no leads to a lot of discontent for the losers, particularly if the result was close and the winning option doesn't turn out to be delivered as promised...

I have to re-iterate that in my experience it is almost entirely remain voters who are saying "brexit wasn't delivered as promised". Most people who voted for brexit were very well aware that they were voting for something unknown, because it was dependent on a complex negotiation that had not taken place at the point they voted. It really is just "loser discontent", and those people were going to be discontented whatever happened, because they were opposed to brexit in the first place. I am astonished at how many remain voters are still coming out with comments like this, regardless of the near total absence of complaints from the people who actually wanted brexit. It's like they still don't understand that what most brexiteers wanted was NOT some specific version of brexit - what they wanted was to leave the EU. Had Theresa May got her deal through then there would have been a great deal of discontent from brexit voters because that deal was not brexit at all. Or rather not brexit enough. Which is exactly why she couldn't get it through.

I agree with the general point that referendums are divisive. As for the losers not accepting the result, as far as I am concerned it is just a basic failure to understand how direct democracy works. The scottish nationalists in particular were never going to accept a no result, regardless of the fact that they agreed beforehand to accept the result. Even now they are coming out with total nonsense about the democratic process -- claiming that "Scotland is a prisoner in the UK", or other words to that effect. "The union isn't a voluntary union!" Well, no it isn't. The UK is a sovereign state -- only Northern Ireland has any special rights, and that is a very special case. Scotland is just a region of the UK, and the Scottish Nationalists just cannot accept that this is the reality. "We are a nation!" they keep saying, as if the words will magically change reality.

So, what about decentralising as much power as possible to each country/region of the UK - seems like a good idea...?

Sounds like more expensive bureaucracy to me.

It's the local elections on 5th May, but how many on here are going to be bothered to vote....?

I always vote, though my choice is binary between Plaid Cymru and Independent.

[clv101]

So, what about decentralising as much power as possible to each country/region of the UK - seems like a good idea...?

Sounds like more expensive bureaucracy to me.

Subsidiarity is a nice idea in theory but doesn't really work. From David Fleming:
"The principle, often advocated by the European Union, that decisions should be taken at the lowest practicable level. It sounds sensible, but it is in fact meaningless because the qualification (“practicable”, or its equivalents) can mean anything.

It can, for instance, be used to justify a slow-motion process of removing the authority of nations: decide on a supra-national (imperial) policy; eliminate any interference at the national level; leave it to the regions to implement the policy by doing as they are told. In this way, subsidiarity’s claim to favour decision-making at the lowest possible level actually succeeds in capturing it for the highest possible level. Subsidiarity is a single word that contradicts itself, an oxymoron."

[UndercoverElephant]

So, what about decentralising as much power as possible to each country/region of the UK - seems like a good idea...?

Sounds like more expensive bureaucracy to me.

Subsidiarity is a nice idea in theory but doesn't really work. From David Fleming:
"The principle, often advocated by the European Union, that decisions should be taken at the lowest practicable level. It sounds sensible, but it is in fact meaningless because the qualification (“practicable”, or its equivalents) can mean anything.

It can, for instance, be used to justify a slow-motion process of removing the authority of nations: decide on a supra-national (imperial) policy; eliminate any interference at the national level; leave it to the regions to implement the policy by doing as they are told. In this way, subsidiarity’s claim to favour decision-making at the lowest possible level actually succeeds in capturing it for the highest possible level. Subsidiarity is a single word that contradicts itself, an oxymoron."

The EU is an unusual case, because it is an example of sovereignty in motion. What you have described is just one aspect of it. Many politicians and people with in the EU actually have an ultimate goal of delivering full sovereignty to the top. They literally want to remove the sovereignty of existing nations, and they aren't fussy about how they get it done. But it is mostly not out in the open, which actually infuriates some of the most passionate federalists (eg Guy Verhofstadt). The problem is that if it does come out in the open, it may be enough to provoke more members to leave. So it has to be done slyly.

[BritDownUnder]

I like the Swiss system. Lots of referenda and different types including citizen led. They keep close to Europe but not in Europe. High rate of but controlled access to weapons.
They have a Federal Council from which the President is elected by the Federal Assembly every year. Canton system seems to work.

[Mark]

Seems like the general consensus is that democracy, however flawed, is still preferable to a benign dictator...

However, an awful lot still needs to be done to improve the democracy experience in the UK....
Such as radical reform of local democracy..., including a rethink on roles/responsibilities...
Such as a fairer voting system for MPs (some form of PR)
Such as radical reform of the House of Lords, which involves some form of elections...
Such as abolition of our current benign dictator (the Monarchy) ?

Personally, I'd favour much more power for the regions. One small example, most people the NW/NE, given the choice, would have much preferred a greatly improved East/West rail service between Hull/Leeds/Manchester/Liverpool, rather than the shambolic white elephant that is HS2... In the event, £billions have already been spent and we'll end up with neither...