DEMOCRACY, hallowed be thy name!
Democracy is the West's sacred cow; her bovine indifference a mascot for her missionary zeal.
Quite apart from the evils perpetrated by democracies in foreign lands, domestic polity is also at odds with ideology in the archetypal modern democracy, the United States. It as been well said that the US constitution is "one of the most inspirational pieces of empty rhetoric ever penned". Predicated on slavery and cultural genocide, and continuing to this day as one of the most unequal societies on Earth, the United States remains buoyant from the sheer uplift of its sincere sanctimonious bombast; incongruously clutching its bible to its chest and mouthing patriotic solemnities over its ongoing mission to propagate diverse obscenities on both sides of its boarders. ...But lest I fall into hyperbole.
The inspiring notion of rule by an enlightened people has degenerated into a benighted one-party state, to all intents and purposes, whose electoral burden is to service an ideologically entrenched middle class. Government policy means fiddling with the knobs and duping the masses while the real megalomaniacal agenda is relentlessly pursued.

There is no democracy.
We get a twice a decade vote on which elite group of powermongers get to rule over us. They then proceed to ignore the public, scratch each others backs, send other peoples children to die in wars and grow rich on the bribes and corruption that power brings.
Its more of a demockery.

Strange- Sweden and Switzerland, each probably more democratic than all of the war-mongering "democracies" combined, have by far the BEST records of peace with other countries- both remaining neutral in World War 2.

In fact, Switzerland is probably the only country in the world whose constitution requires majority public consent via referendum before the country may participate in any international conflict.

Of course, I hate to rain down on the usual "democracy = USA = (all other aspects of USA) = bad" argument by mentioning any country more democratic than either of ours (which are more like what Mikk described) and their unusually good peace record, but I can't help it!

Probably the highlight of my otherwise lacklustre day, was reading that excellent article, Mr Fisher. Thank you.

One minor concern in consideration of the Myanmar introduction, and the reference to joining the EU, is that with Australia's geographical location, would not ASEAN be another possible alternative? If Australia was somehow able to become the 11th ASEAN member, it could mean a little more sway on the Burmese situation as well as smoothing relations with Indonesia?

Please accept this as a very uninformed opinion, from someone who shares the same year of birth and a fair few letters in the name with ASEAN, and not meaning anti-Europe nor anti-Americas nor anti-Africa, but we just happen to be located in Southern South-East Asia, if not here on our antipodean au/nz ownsome as a continent.

King Hazza,
Deja vu! Haven't we been down this path before, apropos these democratic socialist countries? They're certainly more worthy democracies than our own.
But you're right, I shouldn't just pick on the US; Australia's just as bad. Australia doesn't have the clout to engineer its own foreign policy agenda, so it toadies along with the US.
Meanwhile, we are governed domestically by our own worst instincts.

Summary: "Democratic governments sometimes go to war. Therefore democratic government is a bad thing."

Anyone spot the missing premise? Any Iraqis or Iranians, ex-Soviet troops from Afghanistan, North Vietnamese, North Koreans, Rwandans or Burundians, care to comment?

Dear King Hazza,

The article that I wrote makes the point that democracies and/or popular governments can export soldiers since they are not needed to control the population. The same is true for Switzerland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries

“During the Late Middle Ages, mercenary forces grew in importance in Europe, as veterans from the Hundred Years War and other conflicts came to see soldiering as a profession rather than a temporary activity, and commanders sought long-term professionals rather than temporary feudal levies to fight their wars. Swiss mercenaries (Reisläufer) were valued throughout Late Medieval Europe for the power of their determined mass attack in deep columns with the pike and halberd. Hiring them was made even more attractive because entire ready-made Swiss mercenary contingents could be obtained by simply contracting with their local governments, the various Swiss cantons—the cantons had a form of militia system in which the soldiers were bound to serve and were trained and equipped to do so. It should be noted, however, that the Swiss also hired themselves out individually or in small bands.”

‘Peaceful’ Sweden makes money from other nations’ conflicts.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Equipment/Artillery/354-155mm-Bofors-Fh-77b.html

“The Indian Army initially planned to acquire 1500 FH-77B howitzers, from Bofors of Sweden, but due to the infamous 'Bofors Scandal' only 410 guns were purchased in 1987. Due to the lack of spares, an estimated 100+ guns were cannibalized and deemed not operational. A deal was signed with Austria's Maschinenfabrik Liezen (MFL) in July 1998 to supply much-needed Bofors spares to the Indian Army.”

Dear Seano,

Thanks. However, I was thinking of unions of democracies. ASEAN doesn’t fit the bill.

Dear Jon J.

"Democratic governments sometimes go to war. Therefore democratic government is a bad thing." is not a good summary.

From the article: “Popular democratic governments are good places to live for most citizens of such entities.”

Fair enough David- good logic, but it's not really a necessary property of democracies, or a disadvantage of dictatorships.
The premise for dictators and elected leaders with an exclusive say in war policy to focus their entire fighting force onto foreign conflicts and not worry about suppressing the public is rather similar. Outside threats provide a similar motivator for dissenting publics to not want to risk an insurrection of some sort out of fear that they may provide an opportunity for the other power to invade, and grudgingly go along with whatever they want. It's only for countries when all of the enemy powers are actually outright more palatable than the regime in charge.

But the premise IS different for Direct-Democracies in which the public has the sole right to allow a war declaration to pass. Most people aren't so eager to participate in a war if they actually had the paper in front of them unless- they thought they would somehow benefit- and most members of the public tend not to, and know it.
The probability of the dangerous rivals often weighs against public consent- as at the moment they are not attacking at the moment- saying yes to a war means they definitely will. As the public is most likely going to bear the consequences, even the most selfish would think twice.

If the EU were to form a federal army, it would indeed improve the chances of not exporting conflicts- although the possibility of similar incentives for individual countries to join foreign conflicts (like the War on Terror) may easily pass onto the persons in charge of the new Continental Army instead of the nations.

On war, I have the least expertise out of anyone, but I watched Gulf I on CNN for a week or so, and it seemed like a fair call at the time. The bad guys invaded Kuwait and the good guys helped out to save them. Problem solved. Happy planet.

Gulf II didn't seem to have the same justification. Who were the good guys and who were the bad guys that time? IMHO the roles may have been reversed.

Apart from one nation invading the territory of another (and perhaps the Preah Vihear border disputes between Thailand and Cambodia were barely excusable if not political stuntwork from what the papers said) what possible reason is there for any one country to need to start a war nowdays?

Whatever North Korea is getting upto in the lab might be scary stuff to imagine the possible consequences from outside, but who has the right to tell them that they can't have what the others have? How Tibet and Taiwan and China get along might be decided by whether the Tibetans and Taiwanese democratically decide to opt in or out. I'm oversimplifying these things because I don't know my stuff; but on the whole, defence is a good thing for security but attack is the opposite. That's a bad thing.

If everyone just settles down and lets foreign nations do their own thing within their own borders as however they decide by whatever government of the day, with the main international objective of just maintaining the extant borders and no more intervention than that, then when else but in the event of one nation wrongly invading another would justify war? Aren't we meant to be the good guys?

On that note, I must get some rest so excuse me if I cannot apologise for my idealistic ranting until tomorrow. Goodnight.

Athenian so somewhat related: The Old Oligarch. It chills me. Why do we always re-visit history? I read old people are the protectors of Democracy. Perhaps having so much immigration in places like the US, UK and Australia dilutes the living memory of what democracy really is and a form of oligarchy is what we really have as a result.

Quote.
"Now, as concerning the Polity of the Athenians, and the type or manner of constitution which they have chosen, I praise it not, in so far as the very choice involves the welfare of the baser folk as opposed to that of the better class. I repeat, I withhold my praise so far; but, given the fact that this is the type agreed upon, I propose to show that they set about its preservation in the right way; and that those other transactions in connection with it, which are looked upon as blunders by the rest of the Hellenic world, are the reverse.

What it comes to, therefore, is that a state founded upon such institutions will not be the best state; but, given a democracy, these are the right means to procure its preservation. The People, it must be borne in mind, does not demand that the city should be well governed and itself a slave. It desires to be free and to be master. As to bad legislation it does not concern itself about that. In fact, what you believe to be bad legislation is the very source of the People's strength and freedom. But if you seek for good legislation, in the first place you will see the cleverest members of the community laying down the laws for the rest. And in the next place, the better class will curb and chastise the lower orders; the better class will deliberate in behalf of the state, and not suffer crack-brained fellows to sit in council, or to speak or vote in Parliament. No doubt; but under the weight of such blessings the People will in a very short time be reduced to slavery."

Democracy is the worst kind of dictatorship !

We don't have true democracy.The USA at the moment is anything but a democracy.Patriot act, Bush's presidential orders, habius corpus etc.The USA is verging on being a totalitarian state.So don't try to blame democracy.

“Popular non-democratic governments may also be a danger to world peace.”

Having demonized democratic government , it is nice to know the author acknowledges that other forms of government can also present a very real danger if the Third Reich and the Communists who built the Berlin wall displayed in their wholesale distribution of misery, despair and repression.

“In fact the Europeans recognise that the “Brussels bureaucrats” are necessary but are not people, like de Gaulle, Hitler or Churchill, who would inspire devotion. A nation reduced to a convenient administrative unit is not a danger to world peace.”

Why should anyone decide to support any government comprising of “Brussels Bureaucrata” – I am assuming these people are still elected and thus still capable of displaying some modicum of “personality”.

The author seems to be anticipating some miraculous “peace” appearing from the Treaty of Rome and the European Union…

Well I would rather rely on Margaret Thatchers take on things

"(A unified) 'Europe' is the result of plans. It is, in fact, a classic utopian project, a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage done is in doubt."

We will see…..

King Hazza “Strange- Sweden and Switzerland, ….. BEST records of peace with other countries- both remaining neutral in World War 2.”

I guess the French as well as the Poles feel the British response to their treaty obligations was remiss?

Likewise, the vast majority of Norwegians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Dutchman and Belgians felt happy that the UK and later USA decided not to follow the neutral stance of Sweden or Switzerland.

Fact, if those countries of the democratic alliance (the West) had not fought WWII and had not prevailed in the Cold War with Stalin & Co, I doubt we would be allowed free access to the internet or to have this debate (as in Communist China).

Freedom of Speech.. the simplest of things and totally wasted on those who seem to read history but do not comprehend to consequences of its loss.

I'm a bit surprised at the response to this article. There seem to be a lot of OLO commenters who think that democracy is a bad idea.

You might be interested in watching this TED talk by Steve Pinkerton http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/163 which I coincidentally came across via http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2009/11/the-myth-of-violence/ this morning.

Pinkerton gives statistics on violence and homicide over 10,000 years. The rate of death in the last 100 years is miniscule compared to what went before. Pinkerton has a number of explanations, but one that he doesn't really address, but which would fit the facts, is that the rise of democracies has curtailed the organisational impetus to terminate others' lives.

I would suspect that there is a very strong mathematical correlation between the rise of democracy and the decline in violence. Which stands to reason because the underpinning of the concept of democracy is that every life has value. If you have that conceptual underpinning in how you conduct your life you are much less likely to devalue the life of another than otherwise.

Indeed, it's the democratic values that make the idea that going to war is a bad thing seem so self-evident, even if democracies do occasionally go to war.

Dear Graham,

I think democracy is a very good idea. The article is an exercise in free speech - a product of democracy.

Democracy is such a good idea and can win such popular support that democracies can waste their substance in military adventures since enough wealth is produced to finance a strong military establishment and the military, not needed to control the people of the democracy, can be exported. As the article points out militarism destroyed the democracy of Athens. As one who loves the United States I do not want to see the same thing happen to the US.

I have been very bothered by American militarism since World War II. Lyndon Johnson lied the US into expanding the Vietnamese War by the phony Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Bush 41 got us into Gulf War 1 by having April Glasspie tell Saddam Hussein his quarrel with Kuwait was not the business of the US. He felt free to invade Kuwait. Bush 41 US then rigged phony testimony so the Senate agreed to the invasion. Bush 43 told three big lies to get us into Gulf War 2.

President Eisenhower led the invasion of France in 1943 and warned of the dangers of militarism when he ended his term as president. His speech can be found at http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html:

It contains:

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

I hope President Obama has the wisdom and compassion of President Eisenhower.

Rouge I'm not actually pointing fingers- but the fact remains that the most democratic countries manage to maintain the lowest records of military participation- despite both countries having quite substantial armies and arsenals.
Simple.
If a country doesn't want to fight, that's its right- lots of countries would have liked to have been neutral but weren't given the choice.

I don't see what your problem is....

You cannot call Australia a democracy.
It has not he slightest idea of what the word means.
The legal system is abused by corrupt politicians (as if there s another kind)
The legal system is abused by judges who answer to no one
The abuse of the so called separation of powers is epidemic.
The irascibility of the political parties to feather their own nests is absolutely pathetic ‘
All this in a country that smells of fascism and you knew the saying
If it looks like fascist
Sound like fascist
Smell like a fascist
Then it’s fascist
Don’t step-in it

Democracy is not so much popular government as government by populism, or auto-government, or ideological conformity. The means of production--now subtlised into hierarchical gradations; white collar, career paths for drones, maintenance wings etc.--have become share-holders in the enterprise.
It is naive to suppose that excess production is stored as fat. Against a rainy day? Rather it is invested in the kind of martial entrepreneurship David F alludes to, as well as home-grown R&D. There is no buffer against a rainy day. We are all expendable, living hand to mouth. We are valuable as productive livestock when times are good, but a liability during downturns--when we are treated accordingly, for our own good what's more!
Democracies are largely self-governing, perennially producing a healthy surplus, or being productively chastised to do so during downturns. Does anyone share with me the sense of bizarre unreality that attended the last 12 months, when governments showered money over us? What do we suppose will happen when the whole thing really does become unsustainable? Will our governments fall back on the default humanistic values we all claim to cherish? Or will they "lamentably" take hard decisions? There's nothing human that can't be rationalised. There's no time like the present. Remember Saigon.
Democracy has a huge advantage over autocracy; the whole thing runs itself. The same model has been adopted industrially--sell the workers shares! There's nothing like a vested interest when it comes to tough decisions. And the whole damn thing evolved from rudimentary human nature--insecurity, fear, ambition.
Democracy means unfenced cattle that produce their own fodder! And, crucially, a surplus! At least they bloody well better--or what's the good of them?

I guess I made the mistake of replying to the header of the article instead of the downright hypocrisy of its theologian based content. All I can say to bible thumping component has been said in this attachment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f01IBDoZGg&feature=related
I say meaningful because the sheer arrogance of the author in assuming no one knows anything about history bar his limited perception. For starters Sparta controlled the known educated world at the time of its power and Alexander the great was hardly the model democrat.
Popular democratic governments are a danger to the world
One can accept the rhetoric of the title , but compared to the absolute drivel it contains. I think him more apt title could be
“ Deluded idiocracy and old age “
“http://www.netflix.com/WiSearch?v1=Idiocracy&lnkce=acsEnhCk
And whilst I don’t usually watch” beavis and buthead “movies the message is loud and clear on this one.
The problem with articles critiquing arrogance is they have the author somewhat trapped into believing that , due to , it would appear , his theocratic background , that he is above any form of criticism .
So let’s assume we have a democratic model to guide us.
Whose would you prefer, the English, French the USA? Or the Israeli perhaps?
One cannot include Australia as it is purely a Westminster based Theocracy.
Now I have lived in many courtiers of the world and, whilst not professing to be a political expert, have noted common quirk particular to all forms of government.
The Arrogance of “being “, is the most annoying.
Not because e in fact they may be the best, but because the arrogance of assumption belies the opportunity of comparison.
One would think that because we have a facility for knowledge available to the world at our fingertips ( internet) , that the world would be better off , with the ability to at least research the subject to gain some sort of informed opinion. Not so apparently from Mr. Fisher.

European Union deMOCKracy

The Lisbon Treaty has now been ratified by all 27 European Union (EU) states. This treaty is supposed to give more power to the people, however the way the treaty has been passed is very undemocratic, as a majority of EU countries did not allow the people to vote on it.

This is a classical example of the top down roll out of an EU intitive. For a long time now, I have struggled with this approach and believe that there should be more of a bottom up (people engaging) approach toward EU initiatives. EU countries are extremely diverse and if the EU wants more political power - whether a good thing or bad - the EU should work toward engaging people so that a common ground can be found. This should then subsequently form the basis for EU initiatives.

If the EU wants to win the hearts and minds of its people, it should start to view the people in a more social context and not soley an economic context. I think a fresh approach is required for EU initiatives and the film EU and ME, which can be accessed via below path, gives an idea why a new approach is needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XcFwFB2Q2U