What do we want from democracy?

[DonQuixote99]

Jeez. They would definitely need to be unarmed. Otherwise, it's back to the wars of the roses. I've no idea how it could/would work. Personally, I find it difficult to imagine how the world/could work without nation states. Mind you, the USA is a federation. A giant USA type arrangement..."The United States of Pangea"? Not for me, ta.

I remember thinking about how our 'federation' worked some years ago. There was a dispute in court. Big City was dumping raw sewage in river. Small City, just downstream, sued to stop them. Big City said they had to, for engineering reasons, they were working on system. Big City won in court. And that settled that.

'And that settled that' was the part that I found interesting. Smaller City really didn't like the way Big City was stinking up their town. But I don't think anyone even thought of mobilizing a militia to take violent action against Big City. Still, imagine if an international border ran between the places. In that case, I think tempers would have flared higher. the sewage dumping might itself well be viewed as an act of war, demanding retaliation!

Just different viewpoints toward same facts. In once case force is in theory on the table, in the other it's literally unthinkable. Best thing that ever happened around here is the constitutional convention that got rid of the nascent international nature of thirteen state borders. But 'not for me' is the usual reaction when people are told THEIR borders might go away....

 

[wulbert]

I'm not just talking about pay, but more about wider rights, freedoms and stuff.

There will always be people whose life experiences put them in the lower deciles of society, my point is that democracy, and democratic processes should not bring about that situation, particlarly as a point of policy, on the assumption that democracy and social or economic policy is a zero sum game.
So let's abandon the 'If I want to be a winner, somebody else has to be a loser' mentality or, at least, if somebody else does have to be a loser, let's limit the losses so that the don't fall below the median level. Being frank, we could all do with the billionaires and oligarchs, the media barons and the tech bosses, losing some proportion of their advantages so if we're looking at a need for losers, let's start there.

The proliferation of billionaires is not good. My son gave me an interesting illustration about the difference between a millionaire and billionaire. A million seconds is less than two weeks...a billion seconds is thirty years. And if every dollar is a "vote" in the marketplace of ideas the billionaires are going to have their way if we allow the market rule us.

 

[messengerman]

The proliferation of billionaires is not good. My son gave me an interesting illustration about the difference between a millionaire and billionaire. A million seconds is less than two weeks...a billion seconds is thirty years. And if every dollar is a "vote" in the marketplace of ideas the billionaires are going to have their way if we allow the market rule us.

I may have quoted this before but always worth repeating. In the USA the top 1% of the top 1% (so the top 001%) between them now account for 40% of all political campaign contributions. That is a big source of their clout. We can't think about democracy without considering who funds our elected representatives and what deals are struck to secure the money.

 

[ks.234]

Q. What do we want from democracy?
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

A. Our basic human rights.​

Perhaps a better question is….

Why do we continually accept less?​

We have our basic human rights clearly defined in the UDHR. A definition that our government has signed up to.

And yet we keep voting for them despite he fact that they keep denying us all of our basic human rights.

Democracy has been traumatised by years of abuse and as a consequence is now suffering from low self esteem. Democracy is so stressed by everything it has been through that it feels that it doesn’t deserve it’s basic human rights.

 

[Tony L]

Maybe an opposition that actually turns up to protect it? #ElectionsBill.

 

[messengerman]

Without wishing to add to Sue's herding cats problem can I add a solid written constitution. All the arguments for not having one have been burnt to the ground by Johnson. By Trump too really. If their constitution was as flexible, vague and optional as ours he'd probably still be in office.

 

[ks.234]

Without wishing to add to Sue's herding cats problem can I add a solid written constitution. All the arguments for not having one have been burnt to the ground by Johnson. By Trump too really. If their constitution was as flexible, vague and optional as ours he'd probably still be in office.

It’s no use having our rights written down if we then vote against them. We already have the UDHR which defines our rights as well as a written constitution and our government has already signed up to it, but we still vote in governments that deny us our basic human rights.

We live in a fractured democracy with scant respect for rights because we keep voting for it, not because those rights lack definition

 

[messengerman]

It’s no use having our rights written down if we then vote against them. We already have the UDHR which defines our rights as well as a written constitution and our government has already signed up to it, but we still vote in governments that deny us our basic human rights.

We live in a fractured democracy with scant respect for rights because we keep voting for it, not because those rights lack definition

You're right, voters can always be duped. The value from that perspective of written constitutional rights is that we can't vote them down without super majorities. As super as we want them to be. And governments that try to renege on constitutional rights can be checked by the courts.

 

[ks.234]

You're right, voters can always be duped. The value from that perspective of written constitutional rights is that we can't vote them down without super majorities. As super as we want them to be. And governments that try to renege on constitutional rights can be checked by the courts.

I’ve been thinking about this and I’m not so sure it’s about voters being duped so much as democracy being damaged at birth.

If England is the mother of Parliaments then it’s offspring, democracy, has been brought up by an abusive parent. Democracy is the unwanted child of the Glorious Revolution, a child that has been beaten every time it makes a demand, and that child has grown up insecure, with low esteem, and a guilt complex in which it blames itself for the beatings and feels it does not deserve anything decent to happen to it.

Our Democracy needs counselling more than it needs a written constitution!

 

[wulbert]

Without wishing to add to Sue's herding cats problem can I add a solid written constitution. All the arguments for not having one have been burnt to the ground by Johnson. By Trump too really. If their constitution was as flexible, vague and optional as ours he'd probably still be in office.

I would agree about the written constitution. It helps to answer the question; "What do I want from democracy?" I want to know what my rights are, what to expect at a citizen, what guarantees I have that my government will play by the rules, what sanctions citizens can impose on leaders etc etc.

Our current constitutional fudge, which depends on everyone at the top behaving like a decent (right, honourable) chap, is no longer fit for purpose. A new draft constitution could be produced by a series of citizen's assemblies.

 

[ks.234]

I would agree about the written constitution. It helps to answer the question; "What do I want from democracy?" I want to know what my rights are, what to expect at a citizen, what guarantees I have that my government will play by the rules, what sanctions citizens can impose on leaders etc etc.

Our current constitutional fudge, which depends on everyone at the top behaving like a decent (right, honourable) chap, is no longer fit for purpose. A new draft constitution could be produced by a series of citizen's assemblies.

We already have a draft constitution in the UDHR. We already have a series of agreed rights. The problem is that we keep voting for parties that undermine them.

Any written constitution will still need to be agreed by Parliament and that agreement will result in amendments that dilute those legally enforceable rights.

We already have clearly defined rights. Clearly defined rights that would not only improve individual lives, but improve democracy and the economy. The problem isn’t enforcing them, the problem is we keep voting for parties that circumvent them, to make lives poorer, to constrain democracy and harm the economy.

 

[richardg]

Voting system has to change to represent overall votes and more referenda while in power. Governments should concern themselves more with administration than change. They cannot be trusted.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

We already have a draft constitution in the UDHR. We already have a series of agreed rights. The problem is that we keep voting for parties that undermine them.

Any written constitution will still need to be agreed by Parliament and that agreement will result in amendments that dilute those legally enforceable rights.

We already have clearly defined rights. Clearly defined rights that would not only improve individual lives, but improve democracy and the economy. The problem isn’t enforcing them, the problem is we keep voting for parties that circumvent them, to make lives poorer, to constrain democracy and harm the economy.

One further benefit of a written constitution might be that, like the US, people would be aware of it and learn what it says (in school). So people would know what the contract between them and government was, and the limits, etc. How many people do you know who even know about the UDHR, let alone have read it and have a grasp of what it says and does?

 

[messengerman]

We already have a draft constitution in the UDHR. We already have a series of agreed rights. The problem is that we keep voting for parties that undermine them.

Any written constitution will still need to be agreed by Parliament and that agreement will result in amendments that dilute those legally enforceable rights.

We already have clearly defined rights. Clearly defined rights that would not only improve individual lives, but improve democracy and the economy. The problem isn’t enforcing them, the problem is we keep voting for parties that circumvent them, to make lives poorer, to constrain democracy and harm the economy.

Constitutions are imposed on parliament (assuming we decide we still want one) not written by them. Ideally they'd be agreed in citizens assemblies as @wulbert suggests, ratified in a public vote and then all branches of government would just have to suck up the new school rules.

 

[ks.234]

One further benefit of a written constitution might be that, like the US, people would be aware of it and learn what it says (in school). So people would know what the contract between them and government was, and the limits, etc. How many people do you know who even know about the UDHR, let alone have read it and have a grasp of what it says and does?

But isn’t that the point, in the US a written constitution has not protected human rights? Regardless of the fact that it is taught in school and everyone is aware of it, the written constitution fails to protect ‘inalienable’ rights.

A written constitution has failed to protect the basic human rights of black people and what’s worse, failed to prevent laws such as Jim Crow Laws being passed that directly contradict the constitution.

A written constitution will not protect us, we have to learn to protect ourselves by taking more care about who we vote for.

 

[ks.234]

Constitutions are imposed on parliament (assuming we decide we still want one) not written by them. Ideally they'd be agreed in citizens assemblies as @wulbert suggests, ratified in a public vote and then all branches of government would just have to suck up the new school rules.

The US managed to get around its own written constitution when it came in inalienable rights for black people.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

But isn’t that the point, in the US a written constitution has not protected human rights? Regardless of the fact that it is taught in school and everyone is aware of it, the written constitution fails to protect ‘inalienable’ rights.

A written constitution has failed to protect the basic human rights of black people and what’s worse, failed to prevent laws such as Jim Crow Laws being passed that directly contradict the constitution.

A written constitution will not protect us, we have to learn to protect ourselves by taking more care about who we vote for.

Well yes, but (in principle at least) the first step in getting people to stand up for their rights is getting people to understand their rights. I'm inclined to agree with messengerman and Wulbert that the time may have come that we have need of one.

 

[ks.234]

Well yes, but (in principle at least) the first step in getting people to stand up for their rights is getting people to understand their rights. I'm inclined to agree with messengerman and Wulbert that the time may have come that we have need of one.

But the founding principle of the United States, that all men are created equal, is understood. It is literally written in stone. And yet….

I agree that getting people to stand up for their rights is the first step, in fact I would go further and say it is the first, second and third step, but why is writing them down yet again going to make people stand up for them any more than they do now?

We already have a government that is trampling over human rights, but they are still in power and in all likelihood will only ever be replaced by a government with similarly heavy boots.

We already have human rights, but we vote against them. You can write down those rights as many times as you like, but the problem is that we keep voting for charlatans who circumvent them.

 

[messengerman]

But the founding principle of the United States, that all men are created equal, is understood. It is literally written in stone. And yet….

I agree that getting people to stand up for their rights is the first step, in fact I would go further and say it is the first, second and third step, but why is writing them down yet again going to make people stand up for them any more than they do now?

We already have a government that is trampling over human rights, but they are still in power and in all likelihood will only ever be replaced by a government with similarly heavy boots.

We already have human rights, but we vote against them. You can write down those rights as many times as you like, but the problem is that we keep voting for charlatans who circumvent them.

Well if you have rules or standards there are always those who will wriggle and evade and try to change them if they can. At a guess I'd say as many presidential term limits have been torn up as followed. And as soon as you write a word like men there'll be those who argue about what is meant. In your example slaves, it was argued, were property not men. Ultimately constitutions can't be guaranteed to always beat corruption, Kalashnikovs and a willingness to torture, enslave and kill. But I'm not sure that your counselling idea would fair any better Any other options?

 

[ks.234]

Well if you have rules or standards there are always those who will wriggle and evade and try to change them if they can. At a guess I'd say as many presidential term limits have been torn up as followed. And as soon as you write a word like men there'll be those who argue about what is meant. In your example slaves, it was argued, were property not men. Ultimately constitutions can't be guaranteed to always beat corruption, Kalashnikovs and a willingness to torture, enslave and kill. But I'm not sure that your counselling idea would fair any better Any other options?

But the Jim Crow laws didn’t come into law until after slavery was abolished in the US and wasn’t declared unconstitutional until the modern era (1960’s?).

Weimar also had a written constitution!

Germany is probably the biggest illustration of the fact that where there is economic hardship, people vote for the right wing. We see something similar happening today after austerity and Covid.

It is for this reason that the UDHR offers greater protection for democracy because it includes a right to a well paid job. Not only would democracy be more secure, so would the wider economy and of course individual well being.

The UDHR also has the advantage of already being in existence, not needing legislation, drawing up, consultation or constitutional change, it is not something new (which always frightens centrists!) and our government has also already signed up to it.