MARCH 3,2007
The GREEKS invented DEMOCRACY.
DEMO = people CRACY= power so, DEMOCRACY = PEOPLE'S POWER
BUT PEOPLE'S POWER TO DO WHAT ? obviously to do many many things . Some may be good , others bad.
THAT IS THE QUESTION : what will the people do, or how will they use that power ?
Those who think DEMOCRACY will lead to MOB RULE, obviously do not think well of people.
Those who tend to trust more, think Democracy is the best system invented by mankind.
SO, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE SIMPLY THAT : IF GOOD PEOPLE GET POWER, THEN THE OUTCOME MAY BE GOOD.
BUT IF BAD PEOPLE OBTAIN POWER, THE RESULT MAY BE HORRIFIC.
SO I REFRAIN FROM PUTTING MY STAMP OF APPROVAL BLINDLY ON DEMOCRACY, PER SE.
THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS, AND I WANT TO SEE THE DETAILS FIRST.
SO, MY FELLOW CITIZENS , THERE CAN BE BAD DEMOCRACY AND GOOD DEMOCRACY. IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE QUALITY OF...... WE THE PEOPLE.!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Democracy is not good or bad based on who is in power, because in a well-constructed democracy, nobody is ever in power. The "who is in power" of which you speak should more properly be stated as "depending on the mindset of the people." Certainly, a democracy in a society where most people are greedy, avaricious, and otherwise evil will quickly descend into something else. However, in the real world, a statistically insignificant portion of people are truly evil, and a equally miniscule portion are entirely altruistic. The concept of democracy works BECAUSE people have differences, and by debating them and being forced into compromises in order to accomplish social necessities. In a democracy constructed to allow a simple majority to control everything, then if a simple majority is of like mind, then they will be able to control everything, and the other members would be powerless to improve their fate. So, a democracy which is to be effective at protecting the rights of all to meaningful participation in the decision-making processes must include provisions in its system design (eg. Constitution) to protect against both tyranny by the majority, and tyranny by the minority. If all the members of society have equal opportunity to participate in the discussions and decision-making processes in a meaningful way that guarantees that their views and rights will not be trampled, that is , if the system requires compromise by the majority to win over the minority, without giving the minority enough power to thwart that compromise, then the results will be such that all members will have agreed to the ultimate decisions, and the system serves everyone's interests.
I should have said Democracy can lead to bad results or good results depending on the attitude of the majority in power.
would that satisfy you?
It is obviously what I had in mind. I have a tendency to short sentences, because I think time is precious and do not want to waste people's time.
Malee..Allianceforamerica@yahoo.com
BUT HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN HOW THE REPUBLICANS USED THEIR MAJORITY FOR 12 YEARS TO..............????
to Veganarchist
May I also say that I am talking of the present Democratic system, and not a future other kind of Democracy.
People were almost prevented from expressing dissent for fear of being stamped unpatriotic.
malee AFA
I do not disagree with the nature of your comments...and thank you for pointing out that in some of your comments about democracy (i.e. the way the Republicans in the US abused their power in recent years) that you mean the current form of democracy, and not any future form. That is, by pointing out the flaws of the current system, you are not necessarily making any arguments against a more "direct" democracy, although I can see that you are also not willing to believe that direct democracy is necessarily the solution to the obvious flaws in our current system. Okay, I can accept that. But if you have some other ideas on how we can improve our system in our quest for the ideal form of government, I am anxious to read them.
Post a Comment