http://www.researchgate.

net

Does democracy have drawbacks?

Akram Latiph Mindanao State University Why does democracy not work in poor countries? Here is the simple argument. I will appreciate it very much if someone could tell me the flaw in this line of thinking: 1. Democracy is the rule of majority; 2. Majority of the voters in poor countries are poor; 3. The poor have a short-term horizon meaning given a choice between today's benefit for more benefit in the future they will choose the former. This is borne by their incessant need for survival to find food, clothing, and shelter. Put simply, given a choice between money now and good road in the future they will chose the money. Anyway, they don't have cars to drive in those nice road; 4. It follows that given a choice between a money from a bad candidates and promises from a good candidates they will choose the money; and 5. In conclusion, since in a democracy majority wins, and majority of poor voters are poor, and the poor can be bought it necessarily follows that democracy can be bought and the winner in any election will be the person that has the most money to buy votes. The empirical evidences for this argument are everywhere in Africa and most Third World Countries. You simply have to open your eyes to the truth. Jul 12, 2012

Robley George Center for the Study of Democratic Societies With considerable respect for the simple yet always timely question initiating this discussion, may I first state the immediate, necessary and obvious follow up question: What is the definition of Democracy? Even the opinion of the majority leaves much wiggle room, as this writer hastily acknowledges he is aware you all well know. Thank you, Yahia, for starting this. Most important things first: Is that beautiful sloop yours, Yahia? Theres nothing like a Tall Ship under sail (preferably with fair winds and quartering seas) upon which to seriously contemplate and clarify this confused, confounded and conflicted world. Somewhat reluctantly, back to Democracy. There certainly is the Opinion of the Majority, the Rule
1

of the Majority (frequently quite different), and the Murderous Majority. There are, allegedly, Representative Democracies, definitely Pseudo Democracies, Democratic Philosophies, Democracies in the personal family, the neighborhood, the city, state, region, country, continent, and global family, international organizations, democracies in the board rooms of legally-bound personal profit motivated corporations, in the corporate stockholders meetings, in union halls, and dont forget the many farcical Democratic Republics of this or that country. Is Heaven a democracy? Probably Hell is a democracy at least in the lower levels. There certainly are frequent dysfunctional democracies in the confused U.S. Congress, the confused U.S. Supreme Court, and the staff meetings in the confused U.S. White House, though the same obtains (most) everywhere else. On the other hand, what IS there besides majority-rule democracy for decision-making? After all, decisions must be made. Minority rule democracy? Which minority? How established? How imposed? Tyrannical, Murderous or Wise Minorities? 1% Minorities? One-person Minorities? Who says so? Libraries are full of case studies of good and bad ideas and mostly all bad outcomes of Democracy majority rule and/or minority rule. Perhaps there are different kinds of democratic systems for different purposes even when all the purposes are legitimate. Or do we have to go through this whole definition rigmarole for the word Legitimate? For example, is Evolution democratic? Down what dimensions? Is it legitimate? Or is all this preparation now sufficient for an intelligent conversation on the legitimate meanings, purposes and uses of Democracy? I can hear it now; Get on with it! Having enjoyed, learned from, commented on and then erased my comments on everyone elses comments to this particular question, Ill simply get on with my comments on the subject of Democracy. Suffice to say, heres to the pioneering ideas of individuals regarding democracy and distributive justice, including Thales of Miletus (the first of the Seven Sages), Plato, Aristotle, skipping breathtaking centuries right on down to Borda, Condorcet, Paine, Jefferson, Galton, furth... [more] Jul 21, 2012 ALL ANSWERS (40)

Ronaldo Gomes Universidade Federal de So Carlos The majority opinion is a moot concept, because as it is formed? Most decide yes or no, without making an in-depth discussion? Some authors believe that the majority opinion is a fallacy of representative democracy. Jul 11, 2012

Michael Furmaniuk Institute for Healthcare Improvement I'm not sure of what you are looking for, when you say opinion I only consider ideas, but its what the majority puts in place to maintain their position in society where I think this is where the negative impacts come from. Whenever the majority has been able to keep a minority within a certain economic sphere, or with limited rights for long periods of time. I don't know of any case studies by name, but if you look up any material on groups like the Romany in Europe or in the United States in the 1800's there were plenty of immigration laws made by a majority that limited the minority of immigrants who came here. Jul 11, 2012

Jason Oyugi Bridge Africa well. every opinion has the potential of both negative and positive impacts. but remarkably, there is a vast amount of space between the process of decision making, the content of decisions and impact. since democracy in practice is an approximation (towards the ideal), there are bound to be failings. but does a negative impact mean drawback? is there any form of decision making that has purity? and even if there were, impacts may arise from content rather than process of decision making. as a process, the continuos occurrence and correction of these outcomes of decisions define the depth and richness of democracy. which implies a process that is inherently 'good' with continuously mixed outcomes. and when we say negative outcomes on society, which society? when for example Palestinians make the majoritarian choice to elect Hizbollah, or americans and George Bush or Iran and Ahmedinijad, where do we draw the line of positivity and negativity? maybe those could be cases worth following! Jul 11, 2012

Guilherme Arbache University of So Paulo The first case that came to my mind was the Nazi German: though it wasnt a democratic regime, it started inside a democratic regime (and very advanced in some sort of social welfare). Besides, a lot of people supported the Nazi project even when it wasnt a democracy anymore (in fact, dictatorships also need some sort of support). I agree with Jason Oyugi that every opinion can be "bad", and democracy is a process of choice, trying to get the optimal choice for the common wealth. But I cant think about a good case study for that. Jul 11, 2012

George Lees They (the G8) have brought the ivory towers crashing to the ground! Anyway back to effecting practical change ENJOY your debbate...Best Regards G [email address deleted] Jul 11, 2012

David Kayuni Catholic University of Malawi I agree with Gomez, one of the negative effects of democracy on the society is how it has weakened decision making process. Whenever everyone has to be involved in deciding, they are narrowed to saying YES or NO. The other method involving representatives has proved to be more rotten. The whole concept of representatives has many times proved to be a failure despite people living with it. Representatives are out there always satisfying their interests. Get parliaments/ countries that have tried to change the law negatively as an example. You could get examples on 'third term' attempts using majority in parliament. Jul 12, 2012

Respicius Damian University of Dar es Salaam Not all the time. However, I should take the one who asked the question back to the concepts such as "majority opinion" "ideas" and "democracy"; do these substitute one another? As in my understanding, democracy is the system of governing where powers to rule-and make important decisions in society is vested among the governed in the sense that rulers are accountable to the people. Put aside elections, majority opinion, and combinatorial freedoms of association and disassociation. Democracy means that the government is formed through the consent of the people, it works to satisfy the people's needs and the people have power to question the government for not satisfying their needs. When "majority opinion" is used to substitute democracy, the idea of a government created by the peoples' mandate is jeopardized. Equally, when democracy is reduced to pressures on government institutions (by an irrational free individuals-who constitute a body of the foolish majority, democracy becomes a chaotic game on street-a foolish game by fools. If this reductionist concept replaces the inclusive conception of democracy, the drawbacks of democracy start to appear. Democracy (that the researcher meant) has drawbacks in the following ways.
4

First, it creates very weak and unstable political institutions which are unfit to deliver the public good. The government institutions become impotent due to fear of majority opinion. Hard decisions that must be made cannot be made due to the fear of placing the government at threat of majority opinion (which usually weaken the government) Second, as you may agree that t he majority are always poor; majority opinion is always consumptionist rather than investment and development oriented. The opinion of the fool majority would always be that "the state has a role of providing free health services to all, or free medical services to all, reduce tax to all etc. The majority opinion would always prefer creating an economically poor government, which can never sustain democracy in terms of ensuring that peoples' needs including protecting human rights are met. Can the researcher take deep interest on how the idea of majority opinion was imported and how it worked in countries like Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo DRC, Zimbabwe and Sudan? Jul 12, 2012

Akram Latiph Mindanao State University Why does democracy not work in poor countries? Here is the simple argument. I will appreciate it very much if someone could tell me the flaw in this line of thinking: 1. Democracy is the rule of majority; 2. Majority of the voters in poor countries are poor; 3. The poor have a short-term horizon meaning given a choice between today's benefit for more benefit in the future they will choose the former. This is borne by their incessant need for survival to find food, clothing, and shelter. Put simply, given a choice between money now and good road in the future they will chose the money. Anyway, they don't have cars to drive in those nice road; 4. It follows that given a choice between a money from a bad candidates and promises from a good candidates they will choose the money; and 5. In conclusion, since in a democracy majority wins, and majority of poor voters are poor, and the poor can be bought it necessarily follows that democracy can be bought and the winner in any election will be the person that has the most money to buy votes. The empirical evidences for this argument are everywhere in Africa and most Third World Countries. You simply have to open your eyes to the truth.

Jul 12, 2012

Samuel Castonguay University of Ottawa @ Akram Latiph Would you have any evidence for your point number 3? Not that I disagree but I would appreciate evidences of poor people having a shorter-term horizon. -Some notable case studies where democracy have had negative effects are Athens in ancient Greece (See Philippics by Demosthen, not Cicero), The Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, the election of Hitler and more recently, the EU Crisis where Greece failed once to elect a government that would be able to even act or populations encouraging a national behavior that would worsen their situation. Interestingly enough, the last case is a good example of game theory in action. After all, the interests of each are trying to be preserved but in the end, it might end up being at the disadvantage of everyone because each individual is trying to preserve its own interesting. Of course, as a postmodern philosopher, I would point out to the problems of reality being subjective. It is hard to really pinpoint problems in democracy whereas the notion of problem is itself hard to pinpoint. What is seen as a problem by economists, per example, might not be to others. This is not simple relativism; it is a fundamentally epidemiological problem. Scientists create their own reality where some parameters and values are more important than others and this might conflict with different views of reality. One might then wonder if the drawbacks of democracy are maybe simply the byproduct of a system where realities are permitted to collide on a regular. If so, then, can we say it really is a drawback if it is an intrinsic component of democracy? Jul 12, 2012

Rita Novo Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata I agree with Guilherme Arbache . It can be very useful the reading of Hannah Arendt's work, particularly at "Organized Guilt" and " Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship", about the opinion of the majority in the Nazi Germany. Jul 13, 2012

Akram Latiph Mindanao State University @Samuel Castonguay We actually did a survey of this the Argument 3 in the poor provinces of the Philippines and found that poor given a choice between quick fix and long term gain they will prefer the quick benefits. This is forthcoming in a chapter of the book about democracy in the Philippines. I think it has something to do with their constant need. From empirical point of view it is the weak link the line of argument. However, realistically speaking the poor are more pragmatic and put present survival above all including the future. For example, if a poor person whose children are sick or unable to feed them are given a choice between money from a bad candidates and promises of good governance from a nice candidates. He is more likely to choose the money from bad candidates because that money will save his children and feed his family. The works of Adam Przeworski is a good read on this literature. He argue that when the country's per capita income is less than $4,000 the democracy as we know it is threatened and may not be sustainable. On related streams of thought on democracy. Kenneth Arrow proved that in any voting scenario there will always be a dictator. It's called the Arrow's impossibility theorem, which won him the Nobel Prize. Amartya Sen continued his line of thought and found that it is an inevitable outcome of any democratic voting. Put simply, in a democratic process someone will always emerge as dictator. In reality these dictators are considered the elite who have the money, resources, and talent to dictates the will of majority. Jul 13, 2012

Igor Kondrashin Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Most of people have forgotten the TABLE of types of government, developed by Aristotle. Who wants to remember it, just have a look at -http://wpf.unesco-tlee.org/eng/offpap/top9/tabari-e.htm After that no need to discuss democracy anymore.

Jul 18, 2012

Mohammad Firoz Khan Jamia Millia Islamia I believe in what Stein Rokkan has pointed out, "Votes count, but resources decide." and how these resources are managed or raised is an open secret. Therefore, Lieberman, Gerald F. is very right when he says, Elections are held to delude the populace into believing that they are participating in government." Democracy is a theorem of impossibility that cannot be solved or cannot work:

Jul 18, 2012

Christopher Michaud Does democracy have drawbacks....no not in a highly motivated, adaptable, and educated society. But as most of us know, we vote, but really never know if our votes really count. So we live under the illusion of democracy. Here in the United States there is a saying 'there is not a dime's worth of difference between the parties', and in most cases that is true, with the exception that the Democratic party is nominally better as they have more long term view of governing. But overall the average person in any given nation feels less and less important, and their votes count for less even if they count, due to the current onward rush of the global economic realities that the wealthly do run and control the globe despite what we wish. ...edited for grammar and missing words. Jul 18, 2012

Robley George Center for the Study of Democratic Societies With considerable respect for the simple yet always timely question initiating this discussion, may I first state the immediate, necessary and obvious follow up question: What is the definition of Democracy? Even the opinion of the majority leaves much wiggle room, as this writer hastily acknowledges he is aware you all well know. Thank you, Yahia, for starting this. Most important things first: Is that beautiful sloop yours, Yahia? Theres nothing like a Tall Ship under sail (preferably with fair winds and quartering seas) upon which to seriously contemplate and clarify this confused, confounded and conflicted world.
8

Somewhat reluctantly, back to Democracy. There certainly is the Opinion of the Majority, the Rule of the Majority (frequently quite different), and the Murderous Majority. There are, allegedly, Representative Democracies, definitely Pseudo Democracies, Democratic Philosophies, Democracies in the personal family, the neighborhood, the city, state, region, country, continent, and global family, international organizations, democracies in the board rooms of legally-bound personal profit motivated corporations, in the corporate stockholders meetings, in union halls, and dont forget the many farcical Democratic Republics of this or that country. Is Heaven a democracy? Probably Hell is a democracy at least in the lower levels. There certainly are frequent dysfunctional democracies in the confused U.S. Congress, the confused U.S. Supreme Court, and the staff meetings in the confused U.S. White House, though the same obtains (most) everywhere else. On the other hand, what IS there besides majority-rule democracy for decision-making? After all, decisions must be made. Minority rule democracy? Which minority? How established? How imposed? Tyrannical, Murderous or Wise Minorities? 1% Minorities? One-person Minorities? Who says so? Libraries are full of case studies of good and bad ideas and mostly all bad outcomes of Democracy majority rule and/or minority rule. Perhaps there are different kinds of democratic systems for different purposes even when all the purposes are legitimate. Or do we have to go through this whole definition rigmarole for the word Legitimate? For example, is Evolution democratic? Down what dimensions? Is it legitimate? Or is all this preparation now sufficient for an intelligent conversation on the legitimate meanings, purposes and uses of Democracy? I can hear it now; Get on with it! Having enjoyed, learned from, commented on and then erased my comments on everyone elses comments to this particular question, Ill simply get on with my comments on the subject of Democracy. Suffice to say, heres to the pioneering ideas of individuals regarding democracy and distributive justice, including Thales of Miletus (the first of the Seven Sages), Plato, Aristotle, skipping breathtaking centuries right on down to Borda, Condorcet, Paine, Jefferson, Galton, furth... [more] Jul 21, 2012

Deleted Mohammad, Christopher and Robley, thank you very much indeed for your interesting discussion. Reading the comments I find the problems are more difficult than I imaginated. there is a paradox with the democracy: if we let only people with competence to give their opinions (voting for socioeconomic questions for example) , it may be not the solution that should be voted by the majority of citizens. if we let all the people to vote according to the equality of rights, many of them are

not specialist and they have not really opinions (just influenced by the propaganda) so the vote of the majority can lead to bad solutions. Jul 26, 2012

Christopher Michaud Your welcome! Jul 26, 2012

Robley George Center for the Study of Democratic Societies Democracy is indeed a difficult, yet desirable, subject to study -- especially since it will sooner or later be realized by all humanity. Jul 26, 2012

Raul Medina Autonomous University of Chihuahua if Democracy can be a flaw?......mmmh ask the Dodos! Aug 9, 2012

Robley George Center for the Study of Democratic Societies Raul, "If democracy can 'be a flaw?'" means/implies/grasps at WHAT? And what, seriously, and if you are inclined to be so, does "Dodos" have to do with the subject? To be sure, an occasional diversion is not only welcome but necessary to maintain a balanced sanity. Aug 9, 2012

George Lees
10

Ask Dr Jill stein head of the US Green party....you need to be fllthy rich to be in contention to run and if you are not in the two main parties you can only limp.....BUT THAT WAS BEFORE THE JOBS started to tumble. George Scotland Aug 10, 2012

Robley George Center for the Study of Democratic Societies As for Dr. Stein, I am well aware of her, her dedication, her articulation, and her refusal to bellyache about present difficulties. Fwiw, I am and have been a member of the US Green party for almost a decade. How about we all stick to the initial question, acknowledge the very different interpretations of democracy, carefully define the Democracy we desire and choose to deal with, and then explore what can beneficially be done with such a democracy? Aug 10, 2012

Kevin Connolly No longer associated with ResearchGate The United States have tried to create a system in which the majority lacks the power to oppress minorities. They have not succeeded, but perhaps that's why democracy is an experiment. But it is doomed to fail as long as it is based on concepts of 'majority rule.' The sheeple are a tool of the 1%, bought and paid for, and simply postponing armageddon. To find the reasons why democracy fails, remember that more than half of the population has an IQ of 100 or below. Reflect on that, and consider that the stupidity of the sheeple is the inherent flaw of democracy, and the reason why the fuehrer principle keeps finding its supporters. Aug 16, 2012

Deleted I think the drawbacks can be rised or attenuated according to the system that a country is governed. It's normal that men who have a hand on media can manipulate the population. Also lobbying can corrupt or influence the decisions to take when a solution doesn't please a few (but powerful) minority. I think to have a good democratic system, the population should have more an education and a sense of responsibility. For all persons who voted they should follow and be informed continously about the decisions and the work done by their elected people the long of the period of the governance. I said
11

that because I know some citizens that gave their voices for some people don't care after what is going on. They are only occupied by their daily work. If their elected people are behind killings or bad things, they don't care or even feel guilty. The unconcern of such citizens is a drawback for the democracy. Aug 28, 2012

Igor Kondrashin Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy I fully agree with Mr. Yahia Ouadah that most of citizens in most countries that gave their voices for some politicians don't care after what is going on. Moreover the citizens themselves in practice are not united at all to control the elected politician. They dont have even any experience how to control them. Therefore the World philosophical forum has initiated a Global program for all around the Earth POPULATION to learn how to be an Earth Citizen in XXI-st century - http://wpf.unescotlee.org/eng/wcitiz.htm So, everyone who cares about proper government of the Humanityor even in his country is welcomed to join this WPF Program. Aug 28, 2012

Kevin Connolly No longer associated with ResearchGate There is a fundamental problem in the question, and in our discussions: what is democracy? When I was in College, one of my senior theses dealt with the problem of Democracy (and I stood first in that class) and the first problem was a lack of consensus as to what what the word means. For example, at the height of the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States considered themselves to be democratically-ruled. The cultures and systems of government of those two countries were very different. So what do we mean by "democracy?" And who would think that "democracy" is inherently superior to other regimes? Aug 28, 2012

Peter Osimiri University of Lagos

12

Yes I quite agree Kevin Connolly, Until we settle the question, what is a democracy? we just might be speaking past other ears. Today democracy comes with all manner of qualifiers thus we speak of socialist democracy, liberal democracy, radical democracy, deliberative democracy, African democracy etc. According to Phillippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl,the word democracy has been circulating as a debased currency in the political marketplace. Every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to be associated with Democracy. I remember that one late dictator ridiculously suggested that democracy means" to sit tight". if I however suppose that the author of the above question has liberal democracy in mind, I will like to emphasis one major drawback: Liberal democracy is a caricature of true democracy- the democratic content is being whittled down to the minimum. Sep 24, 2012

Igor Kondrashin Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy Dear Peter Osimiri, If you really wish to know what democracy is, just visit this page -http://wpf.unescotlee.org/eng/offpap/top9/tabari-e.htm with the TABLE of types of government, developed by Aristotle, Democracy was qualified by Aristotle and other classical philosophers as DEVIATION from the correct types of state systems and governments, Thus there is no doubt about that. Sep 24, 2012

Deleted Igor, Kevin and Peter thank you. Peter I mean Democracy in general without specifying any system. But what you said is right. Some ex-dictators in some countries can play also the game of the democracy to win again (corruption, manipulation and lies are allowed in their minds). The situation is more favorable for them when the opposition is divided (several political parties with strong difference of opinions) and a half of population doesn't understand anything. Sep 24, 2012

Igor Kondrashin Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy

13

Dear Yahia Ouadah, Half of population doesn't understand anything because there is no proper CIVIL education for Earth populaton in most countries. Thus WPF has initiated the Global project "Earth-XXI CITIZENSHIP" for establishment of World (Earth) community of Earth citizens - Earth CIVILIZATION educated & certified in branches of WPF Socratic Philosophical School - see athttp://wpf.unesco-tlee.org/eng/wcitiz.htm You are invited to join this project.... Sep 24, 2012

Deleted Thank you Igor for the invitation. The project seems sharing some ideas of the universal man (about consiousness, wisdom, morality, etc.). I don't know if it can be concretized but at least it helps to sensitivize and to educate people. Sep 25, 2012

Jose Fernandes Hi, Straight to the question, a case were the majority opinion were an elected government with strong people support, results in a catastrophe, was Hitler's war. Simple as that. Sep 27, 2012

Kevin Connolly No longer associated with ResearchGate And Jose's observation brings us back to the point that our discussion misses the boat because "democracy" is used as a rhetorical tool. I pointed out earlier that in the 1970s, both the USA and USSR claimed to be democratic, and scientists debated the question which society was more responsive to the will of the people. Then we have the problem "who are the people?" I will confess that I am disappointed in the community. It has been many years since I did my graduate work in political science, but I can't imagine that scientific standards have changed this much. The level of discussion here is not much different from what I have seen on MakeUpAlley.com.
14

The question is an important one, a recurrent one, but not one that this community has taken up in any way that even begins to resemble science. The Nazis were not a democratic institution. Their ideological basis--the Fuehrerprinzip--denounces democracy as effete. Instead of approaching the question like scientists, the dominant tone here is rancorous and largely useless. I am going to stop following this topic because I fail to see anything good or useful or scientific in this discussion. And as this is my first foray here, it is also most likely my last, as I see no benefit in reading this drivel or trying to make it respectable. Sep 28, 2012

Sam Baker Cardiff University Dear Kevin, go ahead and take your ball and go home. good riddance. Hitler was elected. once he got in power, then he denounced democracy. the nazis were not a democratic institution, but they rose to power via a popular vote, which is a key feature of democracy. Hitler was able to manipulate popular opinion, rig the political game and come to power -- all within a democratic tradition. that is what Jose is suggesting (if i may be so bold). the fact the Nazi's were not Democratic is beside the point. democracy is "the God that failed" as explained by the anarchist scholar Herman Hoppe who points out that majority rules is a tyranny. It may be a tyranny of the many over the few rather than of the few over the many, but it is still a tyranny because decisions are enforced by coersive public sector means. the classical liberal tradition aims to facilitate a spontaneous order that develops out of institutions that facilitate the ability of individuals to agree to disagree over how they wish to live and make decisions for themselves. JS Mill provided the definitive definition for "liberty" in such a system. so called "Anarchists" are not advocating a society where "anything goes" or might makes right or where it is survival of the fittest. anarchists advocate a social system where social order is not enforced from the barrel of a government "gun" but rather organizes spontaneously according to certain foundational principles including the maximization of individual liberty, the sanctity of private property rights and peaceful exchange. spontaneous and sustainable social order and peace and NOT thuggery and utter chaos are the principal features of an anarchist social organization. in a non-democratic anarchist social system, there is peace and productive social cooperation, not because the government enforces this through a combination of legislative and coersive enforcement capabilities of the state (police, military, prisons, tax authority) but rather because society spontaneously organizes institutions that enforce principles of liberty, private property and peace. our founding fathers understood very well the dangers of direct democracy which is why they specifically designed our system as a Constitutional Republic and NOT a direct Democracy.
15

Concepts like the electoral college and separation of powers -- including an unelected supreme court -- and state's rights are all elements of a Republic that attempt to minimize the risks of a direct democracy, which is subject to hijacking by special interests as described in Public Choice theory. Frederick Bastiat anticipated much of Public Choice Theory including in some of the keen observations in his master work The Law. he noted that universal suffrage is no panacea for solving social ills -- no matter how educated the population. Instead, voting privilege is typically sought after, and then used by special interests to maximize rent seekin... Oct 5, 2012

Sam Baker Cardiff University JS Mill On LIBERTY-The object of this Essay (On Liberty) is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. IF THE 51% majority votes to impose force on individuals for his or her "own good" that is tyranny, not liberty. In that way, Democracy can very easily facilitate tyranny. Oct 5, 2012

Sam Baker Cardiff University Please read an essay by Herman Hoppe that explains very well the dangers of Democracy by hypothesizing what sort of dystopian system would result from a "world Democracy." "Down with Democracy" by Herman Hoppe. November 2000. http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe12.html ps... we are seeing the socially dysfunctional and sanguinary results of modern Democracy today and have been for 100 years -- ever since the Supreme court ignored the checks and balances inherent in Constitution and empowered the Federal Executive branch with the power to impose an income tax and establish a central bank, both of which were directly opposed to spirit and letter of Constitution -16

and have facilitated the consolidation of tremendous power in the executive branch of the federal government, which has institutionalized the tyranny of majority dynamic in our system. Note the increasing polarization of presidential elections nowadays. Each side wants to control the spoils. Each side believes that the election will provide a mandate for their vision of how to order society. We need a system that facilitates social disagreement. We don't need a system that imposes a "correct" formulation on everyone. Oct 5, 2012

Mike Coston Capella University I recommend that you read "The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands By Arend Lijphart, 2nd edition, 1975" Wherein the author shows that religion and societal economic differences can cause conflicts within the political process. When the majority attempts to suppress one or the other, "clevage" can create great disruptions within the system. Just as the increasing number of Islamic citizens is supplying pressure on the largely christian US Congress, and each time there is an act of violence directed at the government, Congress over reacts and clevage builds new pressure points in the democracy. You may also wish to read " PRESIDENTIALISM, MULTIPARTY SYSTEMS, AND DEMOCRACY: THE DIFFICULT EQUATION Scott Mainwaring Working Paper #144 - September 1990 which you can find on Google Scholar Oct 9, 2012

Rita Novo Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata Formal democracy at poor countries is not enough and it is usually missunderstood as populism because those countries as mine have a weak republican tradition.Often political patterns are not grounded on the republican or constitutional compliance. Majorities by themselves can not garantee a real democracy Jan 16, 2013

Khurshid Ahmed University of the Punjab A poor man has little concern what is the form of Government. Until or unless he will have no worry of bread and butter every system is meaningless for him. In developed countries people if not wealthy at
17

least they are satisfied with their life style. Ethics, principles and creative ideas link with economics. So we can not undermine this fact that third world countries people are after basic necessities of life instead of their real value. Only the poverty is a bone of contention i.e corruption,crimes, illiteracy, overpopulation and lawless each and everything are co-related. To me if we want democracy all over the globe we must address poverty. Jan 23, 2013

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/31596

The Problems And Drawbacks Of Democracy. Submitted by Seamus MacNemi (United States), Jan 14, 2006 at 02:12
One of the biggest problems with democracy in my own estimation is that the term is entirely too open to interpretation. It can mean something different to every man who thinks about it. Ostensibly, it means the individuals right to self determination but that presupposes a consensus within a group about what is acceptable and what is not within a society. If there is no consensus then what you have is anarchy and anarchy hardly can be a guarantor of individual rights. The Greeks tried to create a pure democracy and the results were disasterous. The Athenians basically undermined the government organized under Heracles and set the stage for their own defeat and conquest in so doing. I can see the same process taking shape here in America and quite frankly it frightens me. I think the real problem is that many (or most) people think that America is a democracy when it isn't. America is a democraticaly elected republic based upon law and the constitution. That's a far cry from a democracy. In any society there has to be some power structure. This is so even in the most basic of social elements, the family. It is the nature of the power structure to limit the right of the individual to express him or her self to those behaviors (and to some lesser extent those thoughts and attitudes) which the general consensus agrees are acceptable. Thus it must perforce limit freedom. Thus, the idea of democracy immediately presents us with a paradox. How can you have freedom and be restricted at the same time? Personally, I do not believe in the idea of democracy. I believe in responsibility and priveledge based upon the acceptance of responsibility. If I carry a certain burden of responsibility within the society then I'm entitled to a certain degree of priveledge as a consequence. As I see it, priveledge and responsibility go hand in hand. If I fail or abdicate in my
18

attendance upon my responsibilities then my attendant priveledges are forfeit as a result. This seems to me to be only reasonable. Why should I be granted something I did not earn any more than anyone else? Prehaps I might have an advantage in being a member of a certain social class but that does not excuse my from my responsibilities. In any event, the higher my social status the greater my responsibilities within the society as a whole. And this brings another question to mind. It seems to me that the idea of democracy assumes an absolute equality between all individuals. Such a situation is a natural impossibility. Though it might be possible to guarantee an equal representation of all individuals before the law it cannot guarantee an absolute equality of outcomes in all situations. Social rank and priveledge run contrary to the idea of democracy. I know of no society where social rank and priveledge are not determining factors in outcomes of events in any case.

19