What is Democracy?

10 posts


I'd like some points here from people.

From what I gather, the contemporary western mainstream meaning of Democracy is something along the lines of transparent gov't, elections, and gov't exercising "the will of the people".

I have difficulty with this because I find it vague, and I don't understand the purpose of it. Is it based in a belief that what's good for people is obvious to them? Is it based in the belief that people know with obviousness what's good for other people?

Bob Dylan Roof

Are you asking for a complete description of what the average westerner means by "democracy" when they use the term in everyday conversation, or are you asking for empirical, conceptual, or essentialist claims about democracy? With conceptual analysis, the boundaries of whatever is being described are usually set by the concept itself through stipulation. This approach usually ends up conflating a host of descriptions and prescriptions together under a single label and preparing the ground for futile scholastic disputes about shifting and competing definitions of the same word. For the purposes of political struggle, definitions of terms like "democracy" are usually only meaningful insofar as they are asserted against some concrete, existing political power.


Democracy in the most colloquial, Western sense of the word means two different but related concepts. The first is representative democracy, the people elect a politician to represent their interests. More or less a bottom up thing if you ignore the closed two party system and the massive amount of corruption at state and local levels of government. According to this logic, one man (The President) best represents the interests of 307 million people.

The second point is majoritarianism: the rule or the majority or that most people know what is best. Because we all know that most people are generally intelligent and rational.


I think the popular conception has more to do with a sense of rights than with outcomes. The divine right of kings was replaced by the equally metaphysical right of people to rule themselves.

In terms of outcomes, however, there is a sense that elections at least offer protection against tyranny.


Ignore Roland and open a dictionary,
"g overnment by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

The governed govern themselves, or via representatives they elect. How is that vague?
When a population doesn't govern itself it can be governed against its will, and so more probably against its interests.
What is good for a people isn't always obvious to them, but it is more likely they will do what is at least adequate for them than it is another will do it for them.
Having a non-democratic government is having millions of people in the passenger seats with a driver they did not consent to, who may or may not steer them right. It is better for you that the driver is in your employ.
Of course, the ideal government is an Islamic State. But for the last couple centuries every ignorant person has an opinion and wants at least the illusion of choice. So we have Iran, where a handful of wise old men try to implement a system that works while hoping to keep throngs of Westernized campus dikes with their purple hair and nipple rings from skipping class to call Ahmadinejad a fascist, and so give them elections where bona fide secularists and hip traitors can contend.
Bob Dylan Roof
Right, a dictionary definition resolves the issue :tard2: . The dictionary definition can't even decide whether supreme power is exercised directly or by representation. But that's just a meaningless quibble, right? Like the quibble between Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government.

An instrument for appeasing mob envy.

Team Zissou
Not even Muslims want to live in an Islamic state.
It's not supposed to specify everything, just as it doesn't include mention that a fox has two eyes and four legs, yet the definition suffices. You hyper-critical types have run out of things to over complicate. Democracy is a simple idea to get your mind around, there's no need for anyone to mutter "But what is really ?"

Of course they do, and those who don't are either misinformed on it or they're not sincere Muslims. A society that enforces gender and family roles, is tough on crime, bans interest, speculation and price fixing, nationalizes natural resources, bans wars of aggression but obligates wars of defense, guarantees private property, obligates charity to the impoverished, and isn't the heap of degenerate Jew infested shit the West has become. Shariah is a good idea.