Non-people power of the people: what is wrong with democracy in the world

The problem is that ideas about democracy have been distorted from its original interpretation.

Democracy is translated from the Greek δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos "people" and kratos "power, government" - that is, the power of the people. However, the interpretation in the process succumbed to deformation: the society, through elections, elects a representative for itself and, in fact, delegates its power to him, while not taking any part in resolving important issues.

When the results do not live up to expectations (as it happens very often), at best they wait for the next election and, against the backdrop of the emotional impact of the fiasco experienced, they vote for a candidate who promises a brighter future. This is in a good scenario, and in the worst case, revolutions, coups, which almost always have negative side effects.

The Great French Revolution, born of the idea of ​​the Enlightenment, gave mankind equality from birth - this is wonderful, but even here the path to the goals set was through bayonets and blood. The psychology of voters works in such a way that in order to save them, they focus on election promises, but not on the abilities of candidates, their moral cores and essence in general. This is what the monopoly sector uses by placing its puppets.

In other words, the people are removed from government and exercise it by transferring their powers. This is a kind of leader with a zero stake, without the right to vote on the board of directors. This form of government is quite well-established and has become the "default" option.

How to solve the problem of eternal disappointments with the authorities and live in real democracy?

First you need people to understand politics, stories and preferably the economy. It is necessary to introduce the basics of political science into the school curriculum. If people want to delegate their power to worthy candidates, it is necessary to introduce mandatory examinations in the above subjects in order to have the right to vote in elections based on the knowledge of a conscious and intelligent voter, and not to act "according to the call of the heart." If we are talking about democracy, then knowledge of politics, history and economics is as necessary for the population as the multiplication table is for mathematicians and economists.

In Russia, knowledge of history among young people is a big problem. Unfortunately, not many will list at least five domestic artists of world renown, composers, scientists, writers and poets. Knowledge of one's history, traditions and scientific and creative achievements is the paramount principle of the successful formation of a prosperous future.

The Ministry of Education and the media should more often popularize science and interest in the achievements of their country.

Comments

[Basil50]

In this article, for some reason, the author elevates democracy to the power of the people.
In ancient Greece there were many gods, including * Demeter * - the goddess of the earth. Hence the democrat - the owner of the land.
In ancient Greece, initially - democracy - the power of landowners and necessarily slaves who cultivated this land.
Of course, in ancient Greece there were landless rogues - plebeians. They made up the vast majority of the population.
When choosing a position, there was a mandatory qualification for both land and slaves.
Well, who in countries with a democratic regime will entrust power to plebeians who have neither land nor slaves?

[Scientist]

The plebs are already Rome, and in Greece there were demos - slave owners and ohlos - all the others, including slaves.
And so, yes, the demos who could be elected made up to 10% of the population, about the same as now. So everything is in full accordance with the traditions, the power of the slave owners, that is, democracy.

[Basil50]

Andrey
Thanks for the correction. Indeed, in ancient Greece there was - demos and - ohlos.
But now they remember more about the plebeians and about the democrats.

[Vend]

what is wrong with democracy in the world

Yes, it's not like that. Under the guise of incomprehensible "democratic values" a bandit regime under the leadership of the United States flourishes.

[Bulgarian_5]

The problem with democracy is that it doesn't really exist.

Everything controls the puppets.

[tihonmarine]

Democracy is translated from the Greek δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos "people" and kratos "power, government" - that is, the power of the people.

And translated into human language, "democracy" is the substitution of the power of the people by methods, "replacing equal animals with more equal ones." When these lines on democracy were written in Greece, there was still no higher form of capitalism - imperialism. As imperialism develops, the norms of "democracy" simply disappear, and at the moment they simply do not exist at all, democracy is replaced by globalization and Nazism.
As I.V. Stalin said: "Democracy is a perverted form of the bourgeois state.", and now these states have united in aggressive blocs, under the leadership of a group of elected individuals, "arbiters of the fate of the world", who are leading the world to death, but the Western people support this.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: tihonmarine

"Democracy is a perverted form of the bourgeois state.",

[Alexeevich0010]

The more complex the social organism (and the empire is undoubtedly the most complex social organism of all created by mankind, since it is always multinational and multireligious), the more it is subject to system failures. And in order to keep it in order, special people are required, a special social stratum - the imperial elite. They have nothing to do with those who are considered elite by the crowd - actors, singers, socialite party-goers, politicians, popular athletes. For all of them - or almost all - are clown people, designed to occupy the attention and time of modern peasants - managers, office plankton and others like them.
The imperial elite is much less visible. It may or may not be classy. Most often, sooner or later it becomes, if not formally hereditary, then in many respects practically such. For if, even at the birth of an empire, a certain social machine is not created not only for the production, but also for the reproduction of the imperial elite, such an empire will last for one, two, maximum three generations.
And the most effective social machine can be based only on the family, which almost inevitably leads to the fact that more and more generations of families of the imperial elite are included in its main business - maintaining the coherence of the empire. But this, of course, does not mean that the imperial elite is once and for all a closed caste. Even when it is organized along class lines, the majority of those who entered it once came from the bottom. And for representatives of new generations of these lower classes there should always be (and actually remains!) The opportunity to also go this way. (C)

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Alexeevich0010

They have nothing to do with those who are considered elite by the crowd - actors, singers, socialite party-goers, politicians, popular athletes. For they are all - or almost all - clown people

A cancerous tumor on a healthy body of any country, be it an empire or a principality, with the exception of "Error 404", where clowns, clowns and puppets rule.

[Doctor]

“Many forms of government have been used and will still be used in this sinful world. Everyone understands that democracy is not perfect. It has been rightly said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.“

W. Churchill

[AB]

An article about everything and nothing. Here is the case when the essence and problems of the issue are better revealed in the comments.

[Michael_Galitskiy]

The article provides the basis. the author is not obliged to chew everything. He said the main thing, and smart people should understand everything, well, or interpret from the position of their knowledge. If you reveal everything in detail, the article will turn out to be very large, and few people will read it.

[Sergey Zhikharev]

It remains to find out since when the people can actually manage the state, or at least a boat, on the basis of democracy.

[Scientist]

.
First, the very concept of "democracy" is so vague that it can be interpreted in any way. For example, states that are considered a model of democracy do not even have direct elections. And democracy is classical, Greek, so it is, in general, the power of slave owners.
In reality, now democratic is called an elected government, which can be regularly changed and even recalled. But this just says that this power is purely decorative. Well, it is impossible for four years (even twice four years) to radically change something in the economy, and even more so in the social sphere. They are too inertial. Except to break it down. The voters are successfully disappointed and elect someone else who has to change everything again to make things better. And so in a circle. But the shadow elite really rules, which, feeding the people with this appearance of influence on power, conducts its own policy, which is not controlled by anyone.
Secondly, what kind of real choice can we talk about in the presence of millions of voters. They know about the candidate exactly as much as they said in the advertisement. They communicate with him live for the first and often the last time. In addition, the masses do not like the one who promises what is really necessary and effective, but the one who will demand less from them. "Bread and circuses" - the slogan of voters for centuries. This was very well manifested in the late 80s, when they tried to elect directors.
Thirdly, democracy as a system is extremely unstable. It exists beautifully only under "autocracy" - when everything is self-supporting. In any crisis situation, they switch to other forms of government. There are many examples of this in history.
Well, and the last thing, to introduce political science in schools is bullshit. According to long-term statistics from different countries, 5-10% of the population is politically active, all the rest, introduce political science, do not introduce it, it does not interest. And there will never be a prosperous future for the people, where power and all means are concentrated with the oligarchs, again with or without political science.

[U_GOREC]

from dēmos "people"
Again, this nonsense from the 80s / 90s at the level of a schoolboy who read the Ogonyok magazine Demos is not a people, demos is specific part of the people! Determined by property qualification! So everything is in order with democracy! This is how she should be...

[iouris]

Democracy is fine. ("You know, let's have a bite")
If this is the power of the people, then you just need to understand who is the "people" here and who is not the people.

[Okakakiev]

But political science is not a science. It's just a way of seizing power or lobbying.

What political science to study at school? The one that bans the Communist Party?

Study history. How are the neighbors with the Holodomors and Kievan Rus Ukraine?

If everything was simple. It seems that everything is ruled by the human factor

[Pavel73]

The people cannot rule by themselves, just as a platoon cannot command itself. The whole point of democracy is only in the feedback between the authorities and the people. All democratic institutions and procedures (elections, referendums, and so on) are needed only so that the authorities can hear the people

[Knell wardenheart]

Democracy is the more real, the smaller the population, because in this case it is all the more "direct", "cathedral" - people gather, representing a significant part of those who choose. And they publicly choose the most sympathetic or trusting person, who, in order to achieve this, is FORCED to also publicly debate with competitors OR win objective, significant and unshakable authority by deeds that are unambiguously beneficial for the majority, putting it above all other personalities.
The publicity of the choice and the collegiality of the participants guarantee speculative protection against fraud. An objectively unpopular figure in a real democracy ("polis") cannot hide from his "supporters" because in this case they will prefer non-hiding competitors. And the possibilities for fraud are also limited, because the procedures are as public as possible, verifiable and compressed in time (maximum daylight hours).
Accordingly, the more extended, complicated and less verifiable the voting procedure is, the less real democracy it has, the more the personalities have the opportunity to hide from the electorate behind pro-government functionaries and some long and complex ideas about simple things, the less democracy.
At some point, the bloated administrative apparatus begins to "prefer" certain candidates, separating from the Society - and this also kills real democracy, turning it into a semblance.

It is likely that a complex and voluminous society is incapable of being governed democratically due to the above factors and limitations. Scaling from above makes a simulation out of democracy. Scaling from below is essentially something like representative government, but in the case of uneven and unequal teams living in different conditions, such an approach can also degenerate into formalism pretty soon.

The main problem of Democracy, as I see it, is that the interests of the nomenklatura (which has grown within an expanded society) begin to diverge greatly from the interests of society - due to the greater possibilities of the nomenclature, the greater profitability of being in it. and keeps those who are more profitable for HER. And society in a modern democracy CANNOT directly influence the nomenclature in response - the ministers are chosen by the president, a significant part of the functionaries are chosen by the president. The possibilities of society or even deputies to remove these personalities are significantly limited or non-existent "de facto".
All this creates the conditions for a kind of "appendix" in which any evil spirits can settle - and will sit there as long as there is a symbiosis between it and the guarantor. And even at all - it will displace the guarantors at will.

The conclusion - the presence of democratic mechanisms for the DIRECT displacement from below of ANY persons in power - is an unambiguous element of a real democratic model. Without this, democracy will in fact be a democracy of the nomenklatura.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

The conclusion - the presence of democratic mechanisms for the DIRECT displacement from below of ANY personalities with power - is an unambiguous element of a real democratic model. Without this, democracy will in fact be a democracy of the nomenklatura.

No mechanisms will work if there is no basis for them. Is there a basis for what you propose in the modern RF?

[Knell wardenheart]

Properly built mechanisms can work without a basis, but they cannot establish themselves. They need to be installed - and here you need either the desire to "top" or the methodical pressure of the "bottom".
The desire for the top can come only in conditions when the elites face a threat to power and existence from the outside, before which they need the maximum consolidation of society, for which they are ready to go to the delegation of power.
Or in the case of a reformation-minded stratum penetrating into power, and this happens.
The desire for the bottom can come in the event of a systematic and long-term complex deterioration in the conditions of existence (or even longer non-improvement), accompanied by the irremovability of the elites or the course. However, to express the desires of the bottom, formalized political currents are always needed - if they arise, then the situation of forcing the authorities to change occurs more smoothly, through electoral procedures at different levels. If they do not arise (or they are suppressed), then the risk of avalanche-like changes simply increases, with the accumulation of tension within society in all directions.

The basis, as I understand it, is the need for the formation of THIS model from many other models. Our society at the moment has not formed preferences for this particular model, however, there is already an increasing demand for changes and a radical modernization of the current model. That is, for this SPECIFIC, we may not have a basis, but we have an increasing trend towards the desire for modernization and renovation and an increasing willingness of society in this regard to show some flexibility of perception and patience.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Knell Wardenheart

Properly built mechanisms can work without a basis

You just want to believe in it. At the same time, further in your comment, your logic turns on and you begin to contradict yourself. And actually talking about the same as me. There is no basis, although there is a request for changes in this direction.

[Knell wardenheart]

Basis as a request for a good life. Do we have a request for a path to a good life? I think so, because it is unlikely that people like to endlessly stagnate or travel from crisis to crisis in the endless colors of stagnation. But how do people SEE this "good life"? Here, we see it differently. Someone in European terms. Someone American. Someone according to some defective Slavophiles, with a "special path" of some kind of epic spirituality and originality. Well, yes, there are gentlemen of the Left who see the future in the past or the past in the future, it’s not always easy to understand here. The Request that exists at the moment is already material enough to be relied upon, but not yet material enough for one of the charismatics representing these trends to Sculpt from it. Or just no Charismatic? maybe so. There is soil, some kind of abstract forests are already looming - but there is no construction, the builders are also not yet visible. However, everyone understands that either there will be construction, or all this will become the most epic wasteland in the area.

[Maks1995]

one of the media's favorite topics: what's wrong with democracy...

The problem is that Europe and Omerika studied it for quite a long time, peacefully or bloody ... And even then it is not ideal. But at least there is some feedback.

Demand that there be ideal democracy, ideal justice, etc. - too early.
But for desire it can be compared with the delights of an ideal non-democracy. Nicholas 2, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Cambodia. African kings and presidents for life, dictators, successful or not ....
Even successful leaders often left troubled times for their heirs (or simply replaced by more "democratic" ones.)...

[t-12]

dēmokratiā, from dēmos "people"

From the word "dēm" i.e. "community". Ancient Greek democracy is the power of the communities, which consists in the absence of a one-man and sovereign tyrant.

Modern democracy, on the other hand, is the power of capitalist families who "decide issues" in parliament and are not interested in strengthening the central government (whether it be a monarchy, a personal dictatorship or an incorruptible ideological party).

[gromit]

Do not confuse democracy and ochlocracy, the power of citizens and the mob.
That in the West, that in the Russian Federation is now an ochlocracy. Both drunks and idiots and prisoners and old people in deep insanity vote...
Age limit has not justified itself, it needs to be changed. But who will come out to the electorate and directly say - you are illiterate sheep, you cannot trust such an important matter as running the state to people without any administrative skills and economic knowledge?))

[faterdom]

Democracy is the art of deceit, a kind of cinematography for the entertainment of those who do not really govern anything.
Show mast go he.
At best, it's one way to get back to the electorate, whether they're white landowners or Harlem residents.
And the way to change actors, one of, really. Less economical than a palace coup, but more forgiving than a revolution or external aggression.
In fact, everything at once can never manage anything. Even at the level of an anthill, a herd of wild boars, or even more hamadryas.
Therefore, the very thesis "power of the people" is false, it cannot exist, even at the level of a family or a village. Just a political tool among others, but her fetish.
Not dogma. In the history of all currently existing states, most of their historical development is by no means non-democratic, and those who followed this path either turned, like Rome and Greece, or collapsed, like Carthage, the Venetian Republic or the Commonwealth.

[ivan2022]

Quote: faterdom

Democracy is the art of deceit, like cinematography for the entertainment of those who really do not
And the way to change actors, one of, really. Less economical than a palace coup, but more forgiving than a revolution or external aggression.
In fact, everything at once can never manage anything.
Therefore, the very thesis "power of the people" is false, it cannot exist, even at the level of a family or a village
Not dogma. In the history of all currently existing states, most of their historical development is by no means non-democratic, and those who followed this path either turned, like Rome and Greece, or collapsed, like Carthage, the Venetian Republic or the Commonwealth.

Heh .. Heh ... "most of the historical development of mankind" generally took place with stone axes and clubs .. Let's go back, since it is "main and large"?

It is certainly convenient - first come up with a stupid definition of democracy, and then criticize it.
But even in ancient Greece, they understood that "democracy" "is not for the whole people. Because the main part of it were slaves.

And in the USSR they taught that their own "democracy" is for the feudal lords, for the bourgeoisie, but in the Paris Commune it was for the workers. In general, it is only for those in whose hands the state machine of coercion is located.

And the "coercion machine" is an organization of those who give orders to the security forces and turn over budget money.

That is why in a bourgeois democracy those who write papers and chatter are elected by the whole people, and the real executive power is NOT elected. Her ropes are pulled by those who have a lot of dough.

In the Paris City Commune of mountains. ministers were elected. This was called "All power to the Soviet" .... All, which means the executive, too ... .

And imagine, even the "renegade Kautsky" admitted that Paris was never run as well as during the Commune.