Is Democracy naturally CORRUPT?

[C1ay]

I had to laugh at your interpretation of a democracy. Especially ours.

 

Laugh all you want. Even the CIA acknowledges our government type as a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition". We do not have a democracy. You'd be doing better to finish high school, learn more about what type of government we actually have, how it was designed to work and why before you start trying to troubleshoot it. You'd do well to begin with the Federalist Papers to understand what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

[Freddy]

The United States of America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The Constitution provides that all states must have "a Republican Form of Government", not a democratic one. From the Constitution:

 

"Article IV: The States

 

Section 4 - Republican government: Clause I

 

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

 

Just cannot find the word democracy in the Constitution!

[Buffy]

So what political system is able to eliminate corruption?

I wrote an article entitled 'My Brand of Socialism' that is fully compatible with the US Constitution.

Maybe you misunderstood my question: unless you're proposing a "Socialist" political system that is completely dissimilar to what most folks would identify as "Socialist," then you're saying socialism eliminates corruption, which has oodles of historical counter-examples: is this your position? Or would you like to clarify it?

It will outlaw corruption by having the government finance the electoral process while 'banning' all private expenditures of advertising and such.

This payed advertising is NOT free speech. So I think it can be banned legally.

You could write such laws for any political system, democracy, socialism, communism, anarchy.

 

The point of my question is that the OP implies a presumption that Democracy is naturally corrupt--something that you appear to disagree with according to post #2 in this thread--so what I'm looking for specifically in asking this question is whether there are indeed any political *systems* which by their definition are structurally incapable of--or heck, I'll throw it open to "significantly less prone to"--supporting corruption.

 

Correlation is nowhere near as interesting as causation,

Buffy

[Mike C]

Laugh all you want. Even the CIA acknowledges our government type as a "Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition". We do not have a democracy. You'd be doing better to finish high school, learn more about what type of government we actually have, how it was designed to work and why before you start trying to troubleshoot it. You'd do well to begin with the Federalist Papers to understand what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

 

In the simplest of terms, we have a 'dollar democracy'.

 

Our Constitution is designed to outlaw 'self serving' individuals.

 

Dollars are used to control governments, people, self servers and even the religious leaders.

 

To the lower levels of society, it is essential for survival but to the current top level earners, it acts like a drug.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Maybe you misunderstood my question: unless you're proposing a "Socialist" political system that is completely dissimilar to what most folks would identify as "Socialist," then you're saying socialism eliminates corruption, which has oodles of historical counter-examples: is this your position? Or would you like to clarify it?

You could write such laws for any political system, democracy, socialism, communism, anarchy.

 

The point of my question is that the OP implies a presumption that Democracy is naturally corrupt--something that you appear to disagree with according to post #2 in this thread--so what I'm looking for specifically in asking this question is whether there are indeed any political *systems* which by their definition are structurally incapable of--or heck, I'll throw it open to "significantly less prone to"--supporting corruption.

 

Correlation is nowhere near as interesting as causation,

Buffy

 

See my new post on Socialism.

 

Mike C

[Qfwfq]

Just cannot find the word democracy in the Constitution!

This doesn't mean USA isn't a democracy.

 

I don't see the point of arguing so much about the words democracy and republic which, unlike what Mike C says, haven't changed meaning all that much since the Greek and Roman days. Although a few people use the word democracy only for direct democracy and most use the word republic only for representative democracy, they come from the Greek and Latin words for the essentially same thing; this difference took hold simply because the Roman republics were representative. Still, most consider republic a form of democracy. Modern Greek still doesn't have two separate words, it uses only Δημοκρατία and you can see it on any Greek coin including the Greek minted Euro ones:

 

Edge lettering on the 2-euro coin: "ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ «" (HELLENIC REPUBLIC «)

 

I think it makes more sense to put the discussion in terms of the various forms of democracy and which give more guarantee against corruption, if there be any inherent difference between forms. Personally, I think that by definition it's mostly a matter of how much the people have their wits about them.

[charles brough]

So what political system is able to eliminate corruption? I want one of those, :cheer:Buffy

 

Oh, come on Buffy; you can't believe that there is such a thing as a anti-crime form of government? Civilizations are and always have been cyclical. They go up and then they go down. Ours is heading down. When people become soft and over-indulgent, when they are absorbed with getting more "stuff", crime increases and civilizations fall.

 

And within that cycle, there is an equal change in political systems. The old civilizations all started with a communal like state and ended up with capitalism and that, in turn, ended up with collectivism and finally communes again.

 

So, the answer is that democracy is not corrupt but that both democracy and capitalism can be ruined and become corrupted by the success and extravagence that civilization can bring us. That is why civilizAtion is cyclical.

[Buffy]

Oh, come on Buffy; you can't believe that there is such a thing as a anti-crime form of government?

I see them as orthogonal traits! If anything Democracy at least gives a chance for some countervailing influence by those out of power, so might be seen as slightly "less" corruptible than say Communism.

So, the answer is that democracy is not corrupt but that both democracy and capitalism can be ruined and become corrupted by the success and extravagence that civilization can bring us. That is why civilizAtion is cyclical.

Cool. But that's not the title of this thread, and I foolishly assumed that the title was your thesis. If it was merely a provocative title to get people to read it, kudos to you for your marketing abilities!

 

On the other hand, this last quote from you still seems to lean toward saying that Democracy is at least more naturally "corruptible"--as opposed to "naturally corrupt" as in the title--than other systems: if you do believe this, can you justify this position? All I'm saying is that it seems there are so many counter examples that I can find that I don't understand what your support is for this.

 

The right to throw the turkeys out, :phones:

Buffy

[Kriminal99]

You are talking about a system wherein organizations have power not people.

 

If there could be a new form of government that would be the next step, I would call it Ideocracy. This because people could only exert power by understanding first, voting second.

 

The problem with representative people instead of representative ideas is that people have financial needs and therefore are subject to being bribed one way or another. No law can really prevent this completely, since you would basically have to prevent all outside contact or influence with corporations to prevent a representative from being bribed.

 

Instead people should vote on belief sets where the representatives are really just the executors of that belief set. Bribing an executor wouldn't allow him to act in contradiction to the belief set he is is bound to.

[Qfwfq]

If there could be a new form of government that would be the next step, I would call it Ideocracy.

When I was young I thought up Ratiocracy. Clearly not the same as Ideocracy, but still just one of many possible utopies.

 

Instead people should vote on belief sets where the representatives are really just the executors of that belief set. Bribing an executor wouldn't allow him to act in contradiction to the belief set he is is bound to.

And who chooses the executors of each idea? Many political parties start out as exactly what you say, card holding members elect the management of the party and its representative candidates, voters' preference may change the order of candidates in the list. Ends up there's not much difference in practice, the trouble is just that the executors are prone to the shortcomings you outline.

[Mike C]

The United States of America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The Constitution provides that all states must have "a Republican Form of Government", not a democratic one. From the Constitution:

 

"Article IV: The States

 

Section 4 - Republican government: Clause I

 

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

 

Just cannot find the word democracy in the Constitution!

 

The definition of republic here is applicable to invasion or domestic violence.

So this implies 'dictatorial' powers to defend itself or quell any riots.

That is why the states have their own National Guards for that purpose.

 

Other than that, the normal government functions as a representative government along the lines of the Constitutional mandates and the Preamble to the Constitution.

 

I go by the latest definitions of Democracy and republic as defined in the dictionary and more importantly, by the party loyalties to their constituents as exhibited by the people they serve.

The republicans fit the Latin root definition of 'WEALTH + public'.

You will notice that the religious leaders also lean toward the republicans since most of them preach for dollars rather than moral reform that is a virtual impossibility.

Trying to promote this type of reform is like telling the spousal murderers and rapists that one must respect the women rather than abuse them.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

99

 

I think there is a type of government that eliminates the 2 party system by having a

'proportional' type of representation that allows more 'independants' to be involved in government.

I think some European countries have that type of electoral voting method.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

If there could be a new form of government that would be the next step, I would call it Ideocracy.

I'd be wary of naming a form of government with a close homophone of Idiocracy - it's hard to use in conversation without smiling, or, when the conversation turns stressful, contagious giggling. :phones:

This because people could only exert power by understanding first, voting second.

Seriously, the problem with this proposition, I, and I'm confident anyone who considers it for a moment, can perceive, is how (or, as the case likely will turn out, who) to determine when and if the potential voter has attained the requisite “understanding” to be allowed to vote?

 

Will there be some sort of “voter's license” test? A requisite SAT score or academic quality point total (grade point * credits)?

 

Perhaps large scale competition at games of mental skill - Chess, Go, etc.?

 

Or membership in an accrediting organization, such as a national academy of something or other?

 

After decades of consideration, I'm unable to envision a “qualified suffrage” scheme that doesn't, in the final analysis, lead to a “rule of the wise” that doesn't resemble classical Sophistry at best, and much darker schemes in which “not contradicting the belief set an executor is bound to” is decided by an non-elected “shadow government”. This latter state of affairs has been, IMHO, an all-to-common end point of many recent governments, such as the former Soviet Union's.

 

History shows us, I believe, that regardless of the original goals of restricting suffrage, the criteria tends to drift toward selecting for ruthlessness. Like power, “understanding” tends to become something that comes from the barrel of a gun.

The problem with representative people instead of representative ideas is that people have financial needs and therefore are subject to being bribed one way or another.

I can’t see what this is asserting.

 

In any system of governance, from one person governing himself to an absolute dictator governing a nation, the people can be represented only by representative people. One cannot be represented by an idea – ideas are abstractions, unable to make and communicate decisions, an ability essential to any system of government.

 

We the people of a republic chose our representatives because we believe they understand and act in accordance with the ideas we think best can govern us, and in so choosing, chose those ideas. The main risk of this unavoidable arrangement is that people may lie, claiming to support a different set of ideas than they actually do. Thus, we must observe our representatives carefully to catch them in such lies, so that they can be voted out of office.

 

IMHO, a real and dangerous trend of the past 30 years, at least in the US, has been a growing public attitude that dishonesty is a desirable trait in a representative. Because, the reasoning behind this belief goes, the world is hostile battleground in which only those who can conceal their intentions can prevail, we should elect only the most ruthlessly bellicose and best liars.

 

This trend is visible not only in our attitude toward government, but in nearly all areas. We idolize people who win through dishonesty, and seek to emulate them, while regarding people who lose because they are honest as overly idealistic fools.

 

As a case in point, consider that in the 1950s, the US Congress held highly publicized hearings and passed laws concerning the “fixing” of television contest shows, with US President Eisenhower declaring such deception to be "a terrible thing to do to the American people". Now, however, many of the most popular contest television shows clearly state that the outcome of the show is determined by viewer votes, while in the actual language of the contracts signed by contestants, the producers of the show explicitly reserve the right to decide the contest as they wish, viewer votes being simply a factor they may use in making their descision. Overarching this, and effectively negating the spirit of the 1950s “TV honesty” laws, legal precident has been set on the Federal District Court of Appeals level declaring in short that all television, even television that a reasonable person could reasonably expect to be factual, such as a news show, is an entertainment product bound, by no different requirement to avoid intentional deception and invention than a clearly fictional work, such as a fantasy movie (see my 2005 post “Skepticism and broadcast news” for more information and links)

 

In short, I believe that government corruption in republic reflects the attitudes of the people, and that the people (at least in the US) are much more cynical and less outraged by deception in general than they were ca. the 1950s. It’s unsurprising to me that a representative democracy of a people who accept and even honor dishonesty and corruption should be in large dishonest and corrupt.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

For the issue of corruptability, the form of government isn't as important as the type of economy. As pointed out earlier, democracy only exists in the form of a republic. Any type of government under a economic system that allows for personal gain of its leaders is naturally corrupt. Humans are opportunists, and if the system allows for clear opportunities at the cost of another human, those opportunities will be taken.

[Freddy]

The definition of republic here is applicable to invasion or domestic violence.

So this implies 'dictatorial' powers to defend itself or quell any riots.

That is why the states have their own National Guards for that purpose.

 

Other than that, the normal government functions as a representative government along the lines of the Constitutional mandates and the Preamble to the Constitution.

 

I go by the latest definitions of Democracy and republic as defined in the dictionary and more importantly, by the party loyalties to their constituents as exhibited by the people they serve.

The republicans fit the Latin root definition of 'WEALTH + public'.

You will notice that the religious leaders also lean toward the republicans since most of them preach for dollars rather than moral reform that is a virtual impossibility.

Trying to promote this type of reform is like telling the spousal murderers and rapists that one must respect the women rather than abuse them.

 

Mike C

A republican government is mandated for each state. No state could make their governor the dictator of the state or abolish their legislature. Invasions of and/or domestic violence within a state would be addressed by the federal government. During the Civil War states provided regiments of volunteers to the federal government to fight a rebellion. The National Guard can be federalized as in the Iraq War as 40% of U.S. troops there are National Guard or Reserves. States have no control once federalization takes place.

 

The word here is "republic" and as all school children are taught it simply means a government where the people elect their representatives to it. The original roots of the word no longer have anything to do with the modern meaning of the word.

[C1ay]

I go by the latest definitions of Democracy and republic as defined in the dictionary and more importantly...

 

The only definitions that matter are the ones the writers used when they wrote the Constitution. Trying to use new meanings or word usages is simply ignoring the history of the document.

[LaurieAG]

When I was young I thought up Ratiocracy.

 

Hi Q,

 

In Australia, the term 'kleptocracy', is becoming increasingly popular.