Democracy is a failed experiment

[huzihaidao12]

I already mentioned in my previous post regarding the success of western countries-- You are diverting the topic in a new territory. I welcome you if you open a new thread regarding Indian democracy then we can talk about India and it's democracy.

If is it , I think I have answered in previous post, the Western countries have been successful before become democracies. They have enough wealth \ industrial system \ the quality of people \ stable society, so the Western democracies have some really matter, do not deny it.

 

[gambit]

Yes, sir, it is further proof of my point of view, first of all, you think what is democracy? India is a democratic system, why is there such a shocking corruption, where is its oversight in India's democratic system? Why some things do not work in the system? even need a national movement to pressure? you to boast of a bloodless, frankly, it is wise to the Government of India, but I want to know what the Indian people can get from this exercise.

The question insinuated that democracy has some sort of built-in anti-corruption mechanisms. That is not true. But even if we grant that latitude, that mechanism is the vote and a vote has to be earned. It cannot be coerced. A vote can be earned in two ways: moral/intellectual persuasion or an exchange of goods that has immediate benefit to both parties. Those 'goods' can be money or any other tangible and transferable assets. A vote that is earned through moral/intellectual persuasion is a righteous vote. A vote that is earned through an exchange of tangible assets is an immorality.

Corruption exist in political structures and processes only when there are insufficient safeguard mechanisms installed. We call those 'interceptory' or 'intercessory' methods.

For example...

Do we want children voting? No, so despite a law that says '18 is the legal voting age' if we do not install safeguard mechanism like ID card and verification of said ID card before allowing someone to vote, then the law is worthless despite our good intention. The law is good. Not installing safeguard mechanism is an allowance to corruption. And that failure has nothing to do with the philosophy of 'democracy'. It is a human caused failure.

 

[Nitin Goyal]

If it is, I think I have answered in previous post, the Western countries have been successful before become democracies. They have enough wealth to \ industrial system \ the quality of people \ stable society, so the Western democracies have some really matter, do not deny it .

Even after having all this things you need to have conducive atmosphere for that and answer is democracy. From where they get stable society , quality of people, skilled human resources etc ? They evolved over a period of time, they provided equal rights and opportunities to people which is the most basic fundamental of democracy.

 

[huzihaidao12]

The question insinuated that democracy has some sort of built-in anti-corruption mechanisms. That is not true. But even if we grant that latitude, that mechanism is the vote and a vote has to be earned. It cannot be coerced. A vote can be earned in two ways: moral/intellectual persuasion or an exchange of goods that has immediate benefit to both parties. Those 'goods' can be money or any other tangible and transferable assets. A vote that is earned through moral/intellectual persuasion is a righteous vote. A vote that is earned through an exchange of tangible assets is an immorality.

Corruption exist in political structures and processes only when there are insufficient safeguard mechanisms installed. We call those 'interceptory' or 'intercessory' methods.

For example...

Do we want children voting? No, so despite a law that says '18 is the legal voting age' if we do not install safeguard mechanism like ID card and verification of said ID card before allowing someone to vote, then the law is worthless despite our good intention. The law is good. Not installing safeguard mechanism is an allowance to corruption. And that failure has nothing to do with the philosophy of 'democracy'. It is a human caused failure.

Do not worry, gamit, I do not even deny it, but I ask you, why not install a program or support mechanism in a democratic country? Because of a lack of imagination?

 

[Nitin Goyal]

The question insinuated that democracy has some sort of built-in anti-corruption mechanisms. That is not true. But even if we grant that latitude, that mechanism is the vote and a vote has to be earned. It cannot be coerced. A vote can be earned in two ways: moral/intellectual persuasion or an exchange of goods that has immediate benefit to both parties. Those 'goods' can be money or any other tangible and transferable assets. A vote that is earned through moral/intellectual persuasion is a righteous vote. A vote that is earned through an exchange of tangible assets is an immorality.

Corruption exist in political structures and processes only when there are insufficient safeguard mechanisms installed. We call those 'interceptory' or 'intercessory' methods.

For example...

Do we want children voting? No, so despite a law that says '18 is the legal voting age' if we do not install safeguard mechanism like ID card and verification of said ID card before allowing someone to vote, then the law is worthless despite our good intention. The law is good. Not installing safeguard mechanism is an allowance to corruption. And that failure has nothing to do with the philosophy of 'democracy'. It is a human caused failure.

Thanks sir, democratic system is not flawed but the people use them may have some shortcomings that is why I said we are in a nascent stage and evolving for the better world.

 

[huzihaidao12]

Even after having all this things you need to have conducive atmosphere for that and answer is democracy. From where they get stable society , quality of people, skilled human resources etc ? They evolved over a period of time, they provided equal rights and opportunities to people which is the most basic fundamental of democracy.

Well, apart from a few examples of East Asia (through an authoritarian stage), you can find in any successful developing country of democracy?

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 AM ----------

Thanks sir, democratic system is not flawed but the people use them may have some shortcomings that is why I said we are in a nascent stage and evolving for the better world.

Ha ha ha ha, this is what I say, an excuse to go onto the next.

 

[lem34]

Lets look at how america uses democracy. Franco in spain was a dictator and was allowed to stay no sanctions were imposed. Musharraff followed americas bidding no sanctions when he stopped following americans diktat they started to pressure him and say that pakistan needed democracy knowing fully well that pakistan is not ready for democracy. We have people who will vote for a donkey if feudals so demand. In saudi americans do not have sanctions or anything against them yet there is no democracy. Americas love of democracy only applies when it suits it them. I mentioned earlier that france and england where we now have 'democracy' had there share of blood letting and dictators eg cromwell. I think america should stop interfering and hoist their version of democracy on other nations. They just cant shut up telling us what is right and how we should live. This was supposed to be a discussions on new ideas for us not for americans to lecture us

 

[Nitin Goyal]

Well, apart from a few examples of East Asia (through an authoritarian stage), you can find in any successful development of democracy?

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 AM ----------



Ha ha ha ha, this is what I say, an excuse to go onto the next.

you even don't have a single example when masses have protested against the democratic system. Defy my argument with a logic I challenge you.

 

[gambit]

Democracy did not give it a higher literacy level than say china, democracy also did not help in alleviating poverty compare to china. And the west love to knock china cos they dont have western defined democracy

Bad argument against democracy. Literacy has little at best to do with democracy and democratic methods. Philosophically speaking, do we want illiterate people diluting the intellectual ground of discussion with their ignorance prior to every election? No. But from a different perspective, just because a person is illiterate, that does not mean he is lacking in life experiences and can process those experiences in a rational and logical manner. In that sense, his life experiences as affected by political decisions negate his illiteracy.

But once we descended to the practical level, how can we confirm that an illiterate man that despite his ignorance of words and verses in written form can demonstrate to us any reasonable ability to think critically? We cannot so we demand that a voter must be able to read and write at a certain minimum level of literacy. In other words, practical democracy cannot endow anyone with the ability to read and write but rather demand that those abilities exist PRIOR to the exercise of democracy.

 

[huzihaidao12]

you even don't have a single example when masses have protested against the democratic system. Defy my argument with a logic I challenge you.

I think I have explained enough, the world's power is a democratic country, but their accumulation of wealth and success from several centuries, they need their democratic values, so democracy as a concept has become a thing quasi-religious symbols, which is why you want to ignore that fact that developing countries do not have a successful democracy, good governance is really the need for developing countries.

---------- Post added at 12:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

Bad argument against democracy. Literacy has little at best to do with democracy and democratic methods. Philosophically speaking, do we want illiterate people diluting the intellectual ground of discussion with their ignorance prior to every election? No. But from a different perspective, just because a person is illiterate, that does not mean he is lacking in life experiences and can process those experiences in a rational and logical manner. In that sense, his life experiences as affected by political decisions negate his illiteracy.

But once we descended to the practical level, how can we confirm that an illiterate man that despite his ignorance of words and verses in written form can demonstrate to us any reasonable ability to think critically? We cannot so we demand that a voter must be able to read and write at a certain minimum level of literacy. In other words, practical democracy cannot endow anyone with the ability to read and write but rather demand that those abilities exist PRIOR to the exercise of democracy.

Sir, you do not even know the importance of literacy in developing countries, they do not have a welfare, please know it, but I'm not surprised, because you are in the United States.

 

[gambit]

Lets look at how america uses democracy. Franco in spain was a dictator and was allowed to stay no sanctions were imposed. Musharraff followed americas bidding no sanctions when he stopped following americans diktat they started to pressure him and say that pakistan needed democracy knowing fully well that pakistan is not ready for democracy. We have people who will vote for a donkey if feudals so demand. In saudi americans do not have sanctions or anything against them yet there is no democracy. Americas love of democracy only applies when it suits it them. I mentioned earlier that france and england where we now have 'democracy' had there share of blood letting and dictators eg cromwell. I think america should stop interfering and hoist their version of democracy on other nations. They just cant shut up telling us what is right and how we should live. This was supposed to be a discussions on new ideas for us not for americans to lecture us

Buddy...The only 'democratic' items that we prefer other nations install as a starting step towards being a functional democracy are: Three independent branches of government, an independent press, and the allowance of opposition parties. Anything less and we have a dictatorship. You cannot argue against those expectations and demands.

 

[lem34]

I think that there must be more a better way to govern Popularity should not be the only meusure. What about merit. Do we want someone just cos he or she is popular? As i mentioned earlier in certain parts of the world if you put up a donkey for election a maijority may vote for the donkey. So we let the donkey rule us?. Mind you looking at some of the leaders of the world i think that a lot of donkeys have been elected.

 

[Yeti]

I have to say it is a flawed concept but what is better?

 

[huzihaidao12]

Buddy...The only 'democratic' items that we prefer other nations install as a starting step towards being a functional democracy are: Three independent branches of government, an independent press, and the allowance of opposition parties. Anything less and we have a dictatorship. You cannot argue against those expectations and demands.

Laugh, in fact, it means a lot of things, too many things. It is not so easily, if you consider the history of third world countries and reality.

 

[gambit]

Do not worry, gamit, I do not even deny it, but I ask you, why not install a program or support mechanism in a democratic country? Because of a lack of imagination?

I have presented some of those mechanisms in their most basic forms several times already. Your inability to follow a discussion is the reason why I put you on 'dismissed' a long time ago.