[outsitWrord]

I hope I didn't come off pig headed in that last post. You make a good point which I definately agree with. Democracy itself doesn't guarantee anything. My intent in this thread bring up a different topic, but this a good topic none-the-less. I originally started this thread based on a conversation I had with a Pakistani cousin of mine. He repeated informed me that "Western" democracy wouldn't work in Iraq, and I was curious to see what constitutes democracy to people on this forum.

Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate them. I'll have more to say when I get back.

[Retapleapse]

I never said it was. Actually, it's a constitutional republic, if you want to get technical. And, democracy is not just mob rule. There are more than one way to define it. Such as:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule. (mob rule)
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

But all of the rest comes down--IMHO--to number four. It is that power of rule, the rods-and-the-staves of social discourse, that provides a democracy with its operative clause. The "common people" are not a homogeneous group and the power to cast one's ballot has always been limited in one way or another, in some cases severely restricted.

We have often seen how, in a republic as well as a democracy, the majority has been able to restrict the rights of minorities through the use of the vote. So much for social equity and respect.

There is no guarantee in any system, but it is through the impartial application of the law--restricting the governing body as well as the constituency--that any safety lies. I beleive that in a republic it is more likely to occur than any other form of government. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin seemed to agree. That's pretty good company to keep, MP.

[merloermfgj]

My ideal democracy is very similar to how it works in the United States. My democracy (if I was to create my own country) would be identical to US democracy except for a couple things.

I think government should be more involved in moral support. They should promote ideal behavior, not neutral on every single thing. For example, the government should make more awareness programs to stop prostitution and make the general public believe it is bad. I don't think there should be a law against it, but I think it should not be supported. It is the same with homosexuality. The government can't make a law to ban homosexuality, but the government can at least stand up for the straight way and say an absolute NO to same-sex marriage.

Of course morals differ from person to person but I think there are certain morals that should be supported always.

I want this democracy to be low on laws and harsher punishments. Make very few rules, but whatever rules a person breaks should be punished hard so it won't happen again.

[Amoniustauns]

I went for what's ideal about a democracy. There are countries in the world that run very well without being democratic. The best example is probably China.
There is this constant pressure in the media saying democracy is right, It's the peaceful way etc, etc. Iraq was a dictatorship, but it was a stable dictatorship. Despite what our politicians would like us to believe Saddam was not the best supporter of intenational terrorism, especially Al-Qeada, who he didn't like at all (different types of islamic views). We go in, tear up the country, give it democracy and now it has terrorists running all over the place blowing and killing people. Did we do this country any good? That you can answer for yourselves. Other 'democractic ' countries are corrupt, see various african countries, Zimbabwes a good example.
Is it right that only 20 to 25% of a countries voting population get to choose the next government? That how labour managed to win their two terms in office, voter apathy. We take democracy for granted now, but we don't seem to want to get involved in it. There maybe better forms of government, but politicains always seem to go with democracy, until it tips them out of office. They then moan about how they were stabbed in the back.
ARRRRGGHHH! I need to rest now before I go on a full scale rant

[rionetrozasa]

Sorry shooter, didn't mean to be a boor. What I meant was that despite the discussions on democracy, what it is and what it should be, if one was cynical one could suggest that since our governments function in an anarchy, then by extrapolation we also live in an anarchy. It follows then that debate about democracy is just an intellectual luxury but has no significance.

Of course it's too simplistic to look at things this way (or is it?), but I wanted to suggest that it puts a different slant on the issue when you do.

[GreefeWrereon]

Hi Kasia, it was a form of democracy (and the only one in Europe at that time, I guess) limited to noble class of 10% of population.
Poland as independent country didn't exist at that time, the country was called Rzeczpospolita, Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, also included Ukraine, Belorussia and Prussia. By it's multi cultural nature it was the most tolerant country in Europe. Many nations and many religions, a million or two Jews lived there too, even small population of Tatars, plus minorities of Germans, Russians and many others.
It's true that Poland was the dominant member of the union, with capitol in Warszawa (Varshava) and Polish as lingua franca. That's why many call Rzeczpospolita, Poland, but it was not. Also I wish history teachers in Poland were less chauvinistic these days.

Regards
Pawel

[Zhgpavye]

There is no real democracy in the world, only the day we die we can be free.