Debate 1: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate 1: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government. » Debate 1: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government.

Debate 1: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government.

Debate 1: Whether democracy is the ideal form of government.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 04/15/04 - 10:56 PM:	#1
Arguing the affirmative: RandomPrecision Arguing the negative: ashingular Debate Type: Turns Rounds: For this one, I'm choosing 6 (since neither party has stipulated any specifics). Notes: There has been some discussion about the meanings of the terms "democracy" and "ideal" in this question. Herein "democracy" is understood to be the form of government in which supreme power of rulership is derived directly from the consent of the ruled. "Ideal" means "best in this world," not in a utopian dreamland. The debate will begin when RandomPrecision posts his opening arguments. After that time, ashingular will have no more than 24 hours to post his opening arguments. The debate will last until it is completed or forfeited. Everyone but the two participants should feel free to discuss this debate here, in the Discussion sub-forum. And please read the Debate Forum Parameters for answers to all other questions and concerns.

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 04/16/04 - 08:13 PM:	#2
While democracy does not necessarily fit my definition of ideal government, it is the best possible government that we as humans can establish. All governments have their appealing advantages, and all governments have rather unappealing flaws, but in a democracy, the advantages are as present as in any other form of government, and the flaws that do persist in democracy are minimized, making rule by the people the most efficient form of government possible. To begin, I will summarize several reasons demonstrating the efficiency of democracy. Democracy brings with it a greater perspective than most governments. In a dictatorship, oligarchy, aristocracy, or any other type of government based on rule by one or several people, the view of the state is limited. There may be very specific problems, such as a particular flaw in the economy, that would be unnoticed by the ruler(s) of such a government, but observed by at least some of the citizens suffering under the problem. Furthermore, in an anarchic system, there is no official place in which the needs of the people would be heard. Citizens of a nation are powerless to change their position in a non-democratic government. With the greater insight granted by democracy, such problems can be solved by representatives of those affected by such a problem. Similarly, there is a matter of local need that is solved by democratic government. If a certain law is required for a specific locale, perhaps a city, this would go unaddressed in a non-democratic government, because a ruler (or small group of rulers) who control an entire nation would be unable to micromanage every individual city that the government reigns over. As an example, most of you reading this have attended a public school. In such a school, you are a student in a class, which is �ruled� by a teacher. The teacher is in ways �ruled� by the principal of that school, and the principals of schools in a region are �ruled� by a superintendent. If you need a textbook, and there are insufficiently many available in your classroom, if the superintendent is the sole wielder of power, it is extremely unlikely that your needs would ever be attended to. However, if power is divided, not even to the point that you would wield power, but just enough that your teacher could serve as a representative for you, your needs could be satisfied. Examples like this can be easily applied to real life under a government. Democracy allows localities to help quench their own thirsts. Another point in favor of democracy is the depth of corruption of power. I don�t state that power is corrupting, but, the more power that is given to someone, the more potent the results of their corruption will be. If a monarch happens to become a corrupt leader, not serving the needs of his/her people, the massive power granted to this one person will cause extreme recession, unrest, famine, and/or war. However, if one person of a democratic government is corrupted, the system endures, continuing to grant the needs of the people. The only way that such a system would be completely overturned would be if the corrupted controlled over half of the democratic nation. However, even this seems contradictory, because if over half of the nation wanted everything for themselves, they would be supporting the majority of the people. Corruption is diluted beyond malignance within a democracy. A democracy is bound by definition to support the needs of the people. A monarch can pass whatever rules and laws s/he desires, even if they directly contradict the will of every citizen under the ruler. However, in a democracy, if a law or rule is approved by over half of the government, and thereby put into action, it clearly does not oppose over half of the people of the nation, because the rule is of the will of the people. Put differently, the will of a monarch may conflict with the will of the people, and the will of a group of aristocrats may conflict with the will of the people, but the will of the people never conflicts with the will of the people. Consider the state of democracy in the observed world. The United States, based on democratic ideals, has grown in a very short period of time to become the most powerful nation in the world. For many years, the face of Europe has been wrought with war, and the nations constantly vied for control and power. I cannot name a European nation that has not in some way been influenced now by democracy, and the nations of Europe have since grown as well, and also rank amongst the most powerful nations of the world. By observation, it seems also that democracy is a stable government. Russia has passed through more diverse types of government in the past century than any other nation I know of. Monarchy conflicted too strongly with the will of the people, and was violently ended. Anarchy was not a stable system of governing (or rather, not a stable system of not governing), and quickly passed into a communist-based government. This communistic government lasted for some duration, but ended with the countries of the USSR in tatters and rags. Russia emerged, and converted to a form of democracy. They have since rebuilt much of their country, and are rising to the greatest stability they have known in many years. Democracy is the best possible system of government available to humanity. It is not ideal, as I would define the word, but other governments do not possess as much agility and strength as a democracy. As Winston Churchill once said, �Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried."

ashingular
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 14, 2003
Location: California
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 333

Posted 04/18/04 - 12:11 AM:	#3
In the annals of civilization, mankind has for a long time struggled to govern himself. A multitude of systems have arisen in the course of eons past, all vying for the utopian ideal that men arguably long for. Many systems have stood the test of time, and democracy - a relatively novel concept - is not amongst them. Whether or not democratic governments will persevere is for another debate entirely, but I will prove here that democratic ideals are essentially flawed and inferior to other governmental systems (I refer not to wildly uptopian conceptions, but tried-and-true methods). Democracy is, quite simply, NOT the most ideal - and Random and I both agree on out definition of ideal, so let there be no argument there - system possible, not even from a historical perspective. Lest you conjure wild images of failed governments, such as oppressive dictatorships or iron-fist monarchies, as the antithesis of democracy, let me make it clear that those failures do not reflect on the successes of their - or any other non-democratic - system. Indeed, many democracies have failed or degenerated to corrupt forms of government, and we do not judge the United States' government by their failures. Before we continue, I should make it clear that I am agreeing with the intrinsic sentiments in Random's arguments - to wit, that democratic ideals such as freedom and equality are in standing within the ideals of the "most ideal" government; however, these traits do not make democracy itself the ideal system opposed to others. Even many oppressive dictators have forged the way for societal equality amongst classes - it is simply their repression of other ideals such as free speech that makes their system of government a failure. However, even their failed dictatorship can be a huge success elsewhere, as with a "benevolent" dictatorship. Such a "benevolent" dictatorship could introduce all the benefits that democracy could possibly induce within a society, with none of the negative side effects and inefficiency. RandomPrecision wrote: Democracy brings with it a greater perspective than most governments. In a dictatorship, oligarchy, aristocracy, or any other type of government based on rule by one or several people, the view of the state is limited. There may be very specific problems, such as a particular flaw in the economy, that would be unnoticed by the ruler(s) of such a government, but observed by at least some of the citizens suffering under the problem. Furthermore, in an anarchic system, there is no official place in which the needs of the people would be heard. Citizens of a nation are powerless to change their position in a non-democratic government. With the greater insight granted by democracy, such problems can be solved by representatives of those affected by such a problem. This is quite an untrue perception. Firstly, representative democracies can rely on "several" (or even one) people to rule the people; however, it only differs from others based on selection methods - voting - as opposed to, say, bloodline promigeniture. Secondly, most governments, with the exception of the most hardcore dictatorships, depend on a large power-base of workers to distribute the task of governing. Democracy does not necessarily achieve this "diffusion" - assuming such diffusion could be proven to be superior - to a better degree than any other form. Even the Communists had a bureaucracy, remember? Perhaps you are focusing too narrowly on the "failed dictatorships" as your representative anti-democratic government in this argument. Similarly, there is a matter of local need that is solved by democratic government. If a certain law is required for a specific locale, perhaps a city, this would go unaddressed in a non-democratic government, because a ruler (or small group of rulers) who control an entire nation would be unable to micromanage every individual city that the government reigns over. As an example, most of you reading this have attended a public school. In such a school, you are a student in a class, which is �ruled� by a teacher. The teacher is in ways �ruled� by the principal of that school, and the principals of schools in a region are �ruled� by a superintendent. If you need a textbook, and there are insufficiently many available in your classroom, if the superintendent is the sole wielder of power, it is extremely unlikely that your needs would ever be attended to. However, if power is divided, not even to the point that you would wield power, but just enough that your teacher could serve as a representative for you, your needs could be satisfied. Examples like this can be easily applied to real life under a government. Democracy allows localities to help quench their own thirsts. Again, the same lack of perspective as above. You are assuming that only a democracy could solve the problem of delegation of power. See my argument above for clarification. Another point in favor of democracy is the depth of corruption of power. I don�t state that power is corrupting, but, the more power that is given to someone, the more potent the results of their corruption will be. If a monarch happens to become a corrupt leader, not serving the needs of his/her people, the massive power granted to this one person will cause extreme recession, unrest, famine, and/or war. However, if one person of a democratic government is corrupted, the system endures, continuing to grant the needs of the people. The only way that such a system would be completely overturned would be if the corrupted controlled over half of the democratic nation. However, even this seems contradictory, because if over half of the nation wanted everything for themselves, they would be supporting the majority of the people. Corruption is diluted beyond malignance within a democracy. This argument does not address why a Communist government is inferior to a democracy; again, it addresses a specific single-ruler type of government, and draws a slightly suspect analogy between a democratic government-worker and a monarch. A more valid comparision would be the corruption of a President versus the corruption of a Monarch. Presidents still wield enough power to cause "extreme recession, unrest, famine, and/or war" (though I lack to see how a single man can influence natural phenomenona). Just simply because democratic leaders do not wield absolute authority does not make their corruption any less significant. Our President could order a nuclear strike upon Russia at any possible moment, thusly causing all of the negative effects that you outlisted (including famines and nuclear winters, so I guess that's how it's possible.) Therefore, corruption is an invalid issue in this debate, it seems to me, because ANY government - with exception of anarchy - would suffer from corruption as long as any measure of power is conferred upon any human being, for all humans are born with this nature to abuse power. A democracy is bound by definition to support the needs of the people. A monarch can pass whatever rules and laws s/he desires, even if they directly contradict the will of every citizen under the ruler. However, in a democracy, if a law or rule is approved by over half of the government, and thereby put into action, it clearly does not oppose over half of the people of the nation, because the rule is of the will of the people. Put differently, the will of a monarch may conflict with the will of the people, and the will of a group of aristocrats may conflict with the will of the people, but the will of the people never conflicts with the will of the people. I refer you to the infamous Bush/Gore debacle and ask you this: do you truly believe that a democracy can never run counter to the will of its own people? Consider the state of democracy in the observed world. The United States, based on democratic ideals, has grown in a very short period of time to become the most powerful nation in the world. For many years, the face of Europe has been wrought with war, and the nations constantly vied for control and power. I cannot name a European nation that has not in some way been influenced now by democracy, and the nations of Europe have since grown as well, and also rank amongst the most powerful nations of the world. By observation, it seems also that democracy is a stable government. Russia has passed through more diverse types of government in the past century than any other nation I know of. Monarchy conflicted too strongly with the will of the people, and was violently ended. Anarchy was not a stable system of governing (or rather, not a stable system of not governing), and quickly passed into a communist-based government. This communistic government lasted for some duration, but ended with the countries of the USSR in tatters and rags. Russia emerged, and converted to a form of democracy. They have since rebuilt much of their country, and are rising to the greatest stability they have known in many years. I believe the Roman Empire, if you'd deign to call that an "European Nation" in the ancient sense of the word, operated off very un-democratic prodecures of government (despite their brief Republican flirtations which were not in any case indicative of true democracies). Many would agree that Pax Romana was one of the most resounding successes that a non-democratic government is capable of. But, again, you are focusing on the "sucesses" and "failures" aspect of the debate to fit your own perceptions of democracy vs "other" governments. If you want to use these measurements in order to validate/invalidate governmental systems, why don't we - ignoring "failures" in democracies for now - look at China, the undemocratic success-story? Despite the slow crawl towards modern capitalism, China still maintains a decidedly undemocratic system of government. It is poised to become the new dominant superpower in the future years. Already, it is a fast-growing economic power, and the US is scrambling to cater to the burgeoning market there. China's example should teach you that democracy does not beget success; in fact, success is a rather vacuous word that holds subjective meaning to many. Economic success? Political success? But by any means, comparing the success of the United States to the failures of other countries and using that to bolster your argument is not tenable. Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few. - George Bernard Shaw
_____________________ *A Mind Forever Voyaging Through The Strange Seas Of Thought, Alone*

RandomPrecision
Divisible by 3

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Elsewhere
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 1383

Posted 04/18/04 - 07:57 PM:	#4
ashingular wrote: Indeed, many democracies have failed or degenerated to corrupt forms of government, and we do not judge the United States' government by their failures. It is true that democracies are capable of degenerating into governments that are much less ideal than democracy. However, the rancidity of these other governments is a quality of these governments alone. Democracy in Germany before World War II gave way to dictatorship, but the evils of dictatorship are not a reason to abandon democracy. This flaw of democracy can be minimized. The United States, for example, has a system of checks and balances that prevents any one group of people from gaining too much power. To think Platonically, imagine a democratic form, a system of government where everyone has exactly equal governing power. The closer a government approaches this form, the less likely it is to collapse into a different type of government. To prevent one person or a group of persons from gaining too much power in a democracy, power can be divided amongst more people, and the power given to each person can be limited. An example of the former is the difference between an elected single ruler and a republic of many representatives. The elected monarch could easily abuse power, whilst the representatives would not be able to without a majority of their vote, which, given the diversity of well-selected persons, would not occur. An example of the limitation of power is the check and balance system present in the United States, where one branch of the government is capable of overruling another, keeping each part from becoming too powerful. By keeping the power density equivalent for each person in government, abusive governments cannot form. ...democratic ideals such as freedom and equality are in standing within the ideals of the "most ideal" government; however, these traits do not make democracy itself the ideal system opposed to others. Even many oppressive dictators have forged the way for societal equality amongst classes - it is simply their repression of other ideals such as free speech that makes their system of government a failure. However, even their failed dictatorship can be a huge success elsewhere, as with a "benevolent" dictatorship. Such a "benevolent" dictatorship could introduce all the benefits that democracy could possibly induce within a society, with none of the negative side effects and inefficiency. A possibly benevolent dictatorship is just that: possible. There is no way that a necessarily benevolent dictator can be selected. If a single person is selected from a nation to govern it, it is quite possible that the ruler will be benevolent, but it is also possible that the ruler will abuse power, causing such failures as above. However, if all the people of a nation constituate its government, they will not govern in a way in which they would oppress themselves. You cannot assume an innate goodness of human nature that would make dictatorships benevolent if you argue against democracy by pointing out a possibility to succumb to an innate darkness of human nature. This is quite an untrue perception. Firstly, representative democracies can rely on "several" (or even one) people to rule the people; however, it only differs from others based on selection methods - voting - as opposed to, say, bloodline promigeniture. A "representative democracy" in which one person is elected to rule the people does not comply with my definition of democracy. If one person rules the nation, I consider that government a dictatorship. If "several" people are ruling, the government is probably an aristocracy, oligarchy, or republic. What I consider a true democracy is a government where people have the power to govern themselves. Having each individual participate in government would be logistically impossible, so representative democracies and republics are the closest things that exist in the world today. Additionally, voting isn't a different type of selection method than bloodline promigeniture -- voting is a selection method, bloodline promigenture is a succession method. With voting, people are able to select who will govern them. In a system of bloodlines or dynasties, the people are voiceless in determining who will rule. Secondly, most governments, with the exception of the most hardcore dictatorships, depend on a large power-base of workers to distribute the task of governing. Democracy does not necessarily achieve this "diffusion" - assuming such diffusion could be proven to be superior - to a better degree than any other form. A non-democratic government such as a dictatorship may be good for the individual, but it is not guaranteed to satisfy their needs and wants. However, if the people govern themselves, they will rule themselves in the way they desire. What you call the "diffusion" of power may not necessarily be better than what arises from a non-democratic government, but it is necessarily not worse. Even the Communists had a bureaucracy, remember? Perhaps you are focusing too narrowly on the "failed dictatorships" as your representative anti-democratic government in this argument. Communism is an economic system, not a government. The final stage of communism is the destruction of government, after which the individual would have the same difficulties as in anarchy. Again, the problems present with no government mostly relate to the fact that no one is obligated to help the individual. Unaddressed needs will arise from the people, particularly if the people are already accustomed to living in a government state. To resolve the problems that arise, governments will inevitably form out of the lack thereof, and there is no guarantee that the government that succeeds the absence of government will not oppress the people. The governments that are often referred to as "communist" are often dictatorships that use some Marxist ideals to govern the economy. A more valid comparision would be the corruption of a President versus the corruption of a Monarch. Presidents still wield enough power to cause "extreme recession, unrest, famine, and/or war" (though I lack to see how a single man can influence natural phenomenona). Consider the dictatorship in Iraq. Saddam Hussein could have used his nation's wealth to feed the people instead of militarizing, building palaces in which to paranoically hide, and moving vehicles just outside of the borders that the UN demanded of him. This is the only thing I listed that could be consider a "natural phenomenona". Just simply because democratic leaders do not wield absolute authority does not make their corruption any less significant. Our President could order a nuclear strike upon Russia at any possible moment, thusly causing all of the negative effects that you outlisted. Only Congress can declare war. The Commander-in-Chief power of the president is a tad undemocratic, but a system of checks and balances and separation of powers prevents things like this from happening. Therefore, corruption is an invalid issue in this debate, it seems to me, because ANY government - with exception of anarchy - would suffer from corruption as long as any measure of power is conferred upon any human being, for all humans are born with this nature to abuse power. The possibility that an individual at random is corrupted is irrelevant, that I grant. However, corruption is still an issue. One corrupt dictator could cause severe damage, and one or several corrupt aristocrats could cause nearly as much, but a single corrupt senator could do very little without being overruled by the will of the people. The United States system of government allows for recalls and impeachments, further allowing this individual to be removed from the government. The potential negative effects of corruption are directly proportional to the power wielded by the individual threatened by corruption. I refer you to the infamous Bush/Gore debacle and ask you this: do you truly believe that a democracy can never run counter to the will of its own people? The United States government has many facets that are not democratic, the system of electoral colleges being one that I call more of a republican system (How ironic -- the republican system prevailed over the democratic system -- but by republican, I mean a government of representatives, but not necessarily the will of the people.). Furthermore, according to the judgments of that election, the people did elect George Bush. Reports after the election claim otherwise, but the United States government has no provision to allow for the replacement of a president under such circumstances. I believe the Roman Empire, if you'd deign to call that an "European Nation" in the ancient sense of the word, operated off very un-democratic prodecures of government (despite their brief Republican flirtations which were not in any case indicative of true democracies). Many would agree that Pax Romana was one of the most resounding successes that a non-democratic government is capable of. The Roman Republic was quite a part of the Roman government, although it was almost completely muted when the tradition of emperors began. The first triumvirate was made into a dictatorship, which was quickly replaced by a second triumvirate, which was again replaced with dictatorship. The line of emperors after this lead into what many historians call the "bad emperors". Several of these emperors are described here. The republic gave way to a dictatorship, and the dictatorship led directly to the fall of the empire. The republic endured the collapse, however, and when Rome was just a city in Italy, the senators still wielded power. ...look at China, the undemocratic success-story? Despite the slow crawl towards modern capitalism, China still maintains a decidedly undemocratic system of government. It is poised to become the new dominant superpower in the future years. Already, it is a fast-growing economic power, and the US is scrambling to cater to the burgeoning market there. China's example should teach you that democracy does not beget success; in fact, success is a rather vacuous word that holds subjective meaning to many. Economic success? Political success? But by any means, comparing the success of the United States to the failures of other countries and using that to bolster your argument is not tenable. China's economy is growing, that much is certain, but are there not other things in determining the strength of a government besides economic growth? The individual is much better off in a democracy-based government such as the government of Great Britain. There is a brief report on child labor in China here. If China was ruled by the will of the people, the citizens of China would certainly not convene and agree that their children should be put to work as described in the report. However, since the people do not have any voice in their decidedly undemocratic system of government, the oppression endures.

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.