| Register
Monday, January 05, 2009
You must be registered...

You must be registered to post in the forums.

To register, please click the Register link in the upper right hand corner.

Democracynow.com Forums
Subject: direct democracy vs. republic
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author Messages
Mike DUser is Offline

Posts:1

01/02/2008 10:15 PM  

Herein lies a problem I've been pondering lately:
On one hand, there are arguments for a true democracy (or, as properly defined, "direct democracy"). Direct Democracy was employed once effectively, in Athens, Greece. All free men were given the right to vote, and to sit on a council to debate and vote on important issues.
This Direct Democracy gave power to the lower and middle class, and took power from the top-heavy Oligarchy (read: aristocrats).
This was effective then, I believe, because the city-state of Athens wasn't nearly the size of any modern nations, and thus Athenian citizens were able to convene under one roof and vote on issues all at one time.
Obviously, with 300 million citizens (not just free white males, as in bygone days in Greece), convening under one roof might prove to be a bit impossible.
Not to mention, the ability to convene under one roof promoted the average Greek citizen into learning the issues and becoming a responsible and active player in politics.
Today, here's what we find... arm-chair political debaters that quote what they see on NBC or FOX news (which, if you are surprised to find out are owned and funded by strong-willed contributors to certain political parties, you might want to do a bit more  research on your favorite "objective" news syndicates).
But other than arm-chair political debaters, the majority of the nation has no clue what is going on politically. I would venture to say that a small portion of the population is really in tune with current political situation and the possible solutions to problems at hand.
There are posts on this website that are right-- there is a certain "mob-rule" to the masses of the citizens of my country. Just go out on the town sometime- see what people are talking about... what's new reality show is on day-time television, what celebrity got a DUI or bashed whichever ethnic group, Paris Hilton, who's going to flash the cameras at the next Superbowl half-time show... even if it is about current-events or something that does matter... most of the time it's reiteration of what they've been told via some form of mass-communications.
The fact is that, most people follow blindly towards whatever their Party tells them is right, or what they see on television. For corporations with political mind, it must be like lambs to the slaughter. (COUNTERPOINT, there are people who care, and there are people who wants to lead this country to greatness: point of argument- this very website and others like it.)
If I am digressing, which I believe I am, I apologize. As a person who works in an emergency response field, i know how people react in large groups and when under stress... and it's not pretty, and it's not civilized, and it's not usually wise. Large groups of people DO need leaders. Hence the reason our Fore-Fathers established a democratic REPUBLIC.

So how can we balance this whole equation. How can we have the benefits of the power in the people's hands, of direct democracy, of getting rid of the evils of an oligarchy (which I would venture to say we have now). Certainly burueacrats and the major corporations that control them with campaign money have their bottom-line in mind and not our own interests (can't exactly blame them 100%... business is business and you gotta' make a dollar). Yet, the interests of the average citizen is what democracy is all about- not about just making the next big multi-national borderline monopoly/corporation richer.
BUT, how can we have the benefits of a republic- where the dangers of mob-rule are lessened, and we elect citizens who are better leaders than us to direct and lead us toward a common goal?

That is the question I put out there. Perhaps a better fusion of the two- direct deocracy, and republican governing, are the answer. We have some of that now, with referendums and such. Perhaps we ought to put them into action more? Or how about certain Scandinavian countries that employ a watchdog official, called an "Ombudsman." Is there a way to put more power into the people's hands without risking mob-rule?
I would like to hear anyone's ideas.

Mike DUser is Offline

Posts:1

01/05/2008 7:24 AM  

Democracy was born in 508 B.C., when Cleisthenes instituted a new political organization whereby the citizens would take a more forceful and more direct role in running the city-state. He called this new political organization demokratia, or democracy - rule by the entire body of citizens. Council of Five Hundred persons convened the Assembly, which consisted of approximately 21,000 citizens. However, what began as Greek democracy under Cleisthenes around 500 B.C., became an aristocracy under Pericles by 430 B.C. The Greek historian Thucydides (c.460-c.400 B.C.) commented on the reality of democracy under Pericles when he wrote: "It was in theory, a democracy but in fact it became the rule of the first Athenian." The experiment of direct democracy in Athens led to the collapse of Greek civilization. In fact, the progress that characterized Greek Civilization took place either in Sparta (which did not have direct democracy) or in pre-Cleisthenes Athens. One can say that almost without exceptions, direct democracy has been a failure wherever it has been attempted and has not led to any development. In recent times, there are some movements for direct democracy in Europe and America. Elements of direct democracy are present in Switzerland and some other European countries. In all such countries, the most common mechanisms of direct democracy are: the initiative, referendum, and recall. The initiative refers to the right of citizens to initiate the making of a law by common petition. Referendum means decision by citizens on matters of crucial importance. Recall is the right of citizens to call back their elected representatives. Plato (427-347) is often described as the greatest Western philosopher. Historians like to quote A. N. Whitehead who said: "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." Plato’s best known and most comprehensive work is the Republic, possibly published around 377. Plato was born into an aristocratic Athenian family, and he grew up during the Peloponnesian War. It is likely that he served in the cavalry in various campaigns against Sparta. Disgusted by the belligerent and self-destructive policies of his native city, he stayed out of politics and spent most of his time and energy pursuing philosophy. He became Socrates' most illustrious student. The two political parties or social classes that vied for power in classical Athens, as in most other Greek city states, were the oligarchs and the democrats. The Founders gave of a Republic if we could keep it. A Republic to keep the oligarchs in check and prevent the destructivness of mob democracy. Although it has been badly eroded, sidestepped and ignored the Constitution our Republic's backbone remains largely intact. It is not to late to save what was given us but the point of no return draws closer. Once lost it will be a hard thing to recover. *****************************************************************

A house divided against itself cannot stand; therefore, the United States of America has already fallen. It has fallen because America has been replaced by the United States. It has fallen because the American Republic has been replaced with the United States Empire. And it is the US Empire that the rest of world despises and will eventually destroy. It's a long story from the American Revolution of 1776 to the Corporate Police State called the United States of America in 2008. A multigenerational effort has been successful in perverting and capturing the American Republic and turning it into an empire. Partly the people's apathy has allowed a global elite to do this; partly, the global elite has simply done what they wanted, bribing or killing anyone who got in their way. A serie of specific economic, political, military, educational and cultural policies have essentially replced America's Constitutional Republic with globalist imperial policies. Understand this simple fact and the current situation comes into clear focus. Check out the Full Article By Doug McIntosh

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums > Democracy Now > Yes, I support democracy now > direct democracy vs. republic



ActiveForums 3.7
Copyright by democracynow.com   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use