- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The principles of democracy were formulated long before the birth of Christ by Aristotle in his work “Politics”.Yes.The principles are not perfect, like everything else in our world, but these foundations are the most resilient and no one has come up with anything better yet.Socrates had some complaints about democracy.Socrates believed that in a democracy the people �often chooses not smart �and fair,in the rulers,and �”beautiful”as it happens � in the vast � CIS and Russia in particular, but in the present,not the sovereign ,democracy has the chance to vote again and select another, and with other modes, Board �it is not.
The principles of democracy are neither absurd nor false, at least no more than the principles of other political systems. The main drawback of democracy, judging by this branch, is that no one or almost no one understands what it is. Basically, ideas about democracy are reduced to a certain set of general concepts that only partially reflect the essence of this phenomenon: “correct” laws, including protection from the fool, participation in voting and elections of the ruler, moral advantages over autocracies. In fact, the participants in the discussion are trying to come up with a democracy based on their own experience, knowledge of history, ideals, etc.
So, where does democracy begin? It begins with a social contract, when a meeting of husbands decides that power will become a common burden for all participants in the meeting. From this point, the formation of a tradition begins (each system has its own tradition, which can then be fixed by laws; but most often democracy relies on an unwritten set of rules, because this is more convenient and easier), in which power is decentralized and transferred in a circle from one participant to another. In early democracies, power was not contested, as it was the natural right of every free member of the assembly. On the contrary, some people studiously avoided the power structures that, in addition to being time-consuming, also required the investment of their own funds.
The basic component of democracy is the characterization of an assembly member. A member of a democratic assembly is, first of all, a householder, owner of some property or manager of some enterprise. For example, Athenian democracy is often described as a slave-owning democracy (land allotment as a criterion for belonging to the category of citizens), while meteks and slaves were not allowed in the bula. Similarly, the imperial estates of the Holy Roman Empire that sit in the Reichstag are primarily economic entities, counts, fursts, cities, and workshops. This moment seems discriminatory to many of our contemporaries, but in fact it reflects well the meaning of democracy: free economic actors joined forces to protect and develop rules of interaction.
Medieval German squads were peculiar participants in economic interaction, within which there was also equality of all participants. Medieval squads were later transformed into a monarchical system, which seems to be the opposite of democracy, but in fact it is not quite so. Monarchies and republics lived peacefully and were often indistinguishable from each other. But this is a separate topic.
So, at the heart of democracy is a conscious contract of free (that is, they represent only their own and no one else's opinion) participants in the assembly. Laws may be written, but most often the assembly is guided by tradition, because any written law sooner or later becomes a bogeyman. Each participant in the meeting assumes the responsibility and burden of authority, including the need for expenses. Power is decentralized, and responsibilities are transferred from participant to participant. Management is carried out directly and on a regular basis, and not by congresses every few years.
It is important to understand that there is no right or wrong democracy. It either exists or it doesn't exist. It is also important to understand that the political systems of nation-states, which since about the middle of the 19th century began to grant the right to vote to every adult, are not really in the literal sense of the word democracies. Democracies are present only in those countries where there are democratic traditions, that is, where there is an experience of self-government, and where there is a practice of grassroots democracy (elections of village elders and burgomasters). The political systems that have developed in the territories of former colonies, for example, in South America, as well as in other regions of the world where such experience is not available, only imitate democracies. And in each case, the democratic facade hides some other structure, most often a bureaucracy or an oligarchy.
The disadvantages of democracy follow from all this. For example, it is obvious that an active democratic system is designed for small groups, where every voice can be heard and taken into account. (A separate topic is representative democracy). Decisions are made more difficult for the meeting, the more participants there are in the meeting. Democracy cannot be established by decree, since it is established by an assembly of direct participants in the process, or assembled from eclectic political components (interests must relatively coincide). Sooner or later, tradition begins to prevail over common sense, and democracy begins to destroy itself. The decisions of the meeting may be inadequate and erroneous, but no one can change them. Democracy cannot be improved from the outside by adopting the right laws and regulations, because there is no external controlling or supervising circuit in democracy. Democracy requires constant and burdensome participation of all members in governance processes.
The advantages of democracy are mutual control (there is almost no corruption, attempts at dictatorship are suppressed), the presence of competing ideas (I agree with Nikita here), and a more rational and efficient use of resources. An important consequence of democracy is a more equitable distribution of all the profits received by society.
I wrote about the advantages of democracy in an answer to another question:
What distinguishes democracy from other regimes is the following:�
First, it seems that in a democracy, people should decide how their country and society will develop, but this is not entirely true. Democratic elections are like going to lunch with the whole crowd, but there are only two places-one is filled with borscht, the other with cabbage soup. And you're all trying to find some sort of compromise. And when a particular person chooses borscht, it doesn't matter why they chose it – because they've had soup the last 3 times, or because they've done research and found out that borscht is objectively healthier and tastier, or because they've only had borscht in their family and have been eating it for three generations, or because they can't stand it, or because their girlfriend wants The main thing is that the person has made a choice and he feels a bit of responsibility for it on himself. Because when people don't feel it, they tend to rebel.
Second, because people who go to lunch have a choice, both places are forced to compete. If all the beets are moldy in one of them, you can't just throw them in the soup, people will stop walking, and the diner will go bust. I have to turn around. Among other ways to spin, there is the good old ultra-prejudice. After all, what is required? To make the client happy. If it can just be blabbed out, so much the better. But the result is still the same – a satisfied customer. That's what's important, and the method isn't important. In fact, this is a positive feedback – do you want to carry out pension reform? Convince people that it will benefit them, make them happy. Because when people are unhappy, they tend to rebel.
Third, since we regularly change the government, the new government can recognize the mistakes of the previous one. The old ones were fools, but we're not them. In the monarchy, for example, how – Ivan VII came, made a mess of things, but without losing face, he can't say “I'm sorry, I was an ass, I'll fix everything now”, we have to go some roundabout paths. And if he did not have time, his son, Ivan VIII, also somehow does not really want to say “my father is a fool, now everything will be fine”, and again begins to puzzle over how to fix everything like that. Maybe he'll figure it out, maybe not, and we'll have to wait for the next one. But unresolved problems accumulate, and people suffer from them. And when people suffer, they try to rebel.
Well, they strive, and what? And the fact that no one has started to live better after the revolution. Revolution is like cutting off a leg, it hurts and then you will be without a leg, but sometimes the question is that either without a leg, or not to live at all. So revolutions are a last resort, and the healthier you live, the less likely it is that this last resort will be needed.
Yes, in fact, these are properties of any mode. Power changes under the monarchy, and the monarch's reputation among the people is just as important under the monarchy. But only modern democracy is designed in such a way that these things really work, and not as luck would have it. Just look at how many revolutions there were in Europe in the 19th century and how many in the 20th, in democratic countries.
Not exactly. But they can do a lot of harm. Democracy is never complete and honest. There are always manipulations, restrictions on rights, and abuses of authority. But even if we imagine an ideal democracy – the power of the majority, then the majority is often wrong, doing evil.
If you turn to the Salmin of “Modern Democracy”. then it has a division of open society and closed society . That is , by an open society, he means a democratic one, and by a closed one, any hierarchical system. So, if a closed society is characterized by various rituals and taboos, including religious ones, then an open society is based on the fact that, guided by an intention, people begin to fall into mysticism, which “is like the flight of the dream of paradise, in which tribal unity is revealed as an unchanging reality.” That is, people without a hierarchy are not capable of being people in the full sense, alas . Even if you take the Greek model of democracy , it had a hierarchical structure . Further, everything depends on the moral principles that society puts at the forefront . The power of the people in its purest form existed only in tribal communities . Everyone who promotes fair election assumes that they will be chosen . That is, every power struggle is essentially subjective . Therefore, formally democratic principles can differ from monarchical or totalitarian ones only in the amount of social subsidies for the middle and poor strata.
Elections are just another illusion, what are you talking about? In general, it is a mass media project. How were the Romanovs democratically elected?:). Congresses of the CPSU and Ed. Of Russia. Independent world judicial system.
No, they are not false, the ideas of democracy are correct, those who do not believe in democracy do not believe in their own people, yes, democracy does not always lead to an ideal government, but in the end it is democracy that provides the tools for changing and correcting the current regime