Is Democracy the Right Choice for all? Documentary Report

[Praxius]

CBC.ca | The National | Archive | International/U.S. | Inside Bhutan

Direct Video Link:
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/23745/thenati...tan-112607.wmv

This could also be thrown into Politics and Government, but I feel this has more to do with affects on a paticular society in question, Bhutan.

Apparently the Current King of Bhutan has decided to step down and change his country to a Democracy..... however the people of Bhutan all oppose the idea, find it confusing, fearful of division, generally they are happy with their lives as is now.

In other words, the people do not want Democracy, but rather their King instead. It's a catch 22 if you ask me:

• The King wants Democracy, therefore you obey your king and conform to Democracy, or....

• The people decide democratically if they want democracy or not.... they clearly don't by this video report, so therefore should they go back to their king?

I recomend watching the entire thing, as it isn't too long, picture and audio quality we very good, and explains itself quite well.

Basically I have one question for this debate in paticular:

Do you feel these people need or should conform to Democracy once you see how their lives are and what their main principles are (ie: Gross National Happiness over Gross Domestic Product) Or do you feel they don't need it for their way of life.

Is Democracy Right for Everyone?

[HelioPrime]

Gross National Happiness!

If they like their form of government then why should they change it? As long as its effective and obtains the goals it sets.

Perhaps a free market and democracy would increase the production capacity of their nation, but at the moment they seem fairly isolated from the worst cases or greed and corruption.

[Suburbanite]

Wow, I think this country is so beautiful! I'm looking at all this pictures and I think I know where I'm vacationing this summer.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Praxius, why not both, it appears to work for the english

[Praxius]

true, but if they feel they don't need it and are truly happy with their lives as is, then why should they change? Why add into the calculations of democracy to screw it all up if the system now works, no body is oppressed, they all have food on their tables and are just plain happy?

Even the terrain opposes Democracy as everyone has to go out and vote and as you can see they all live on mountians and very distant locations. It takes forever to reach everyone and it's also quite the health hazzard.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius true, but if they feel they don't need it and are truly happy with their lives as is, then why should they change? Why add into the calculations of democracy to screw it all up if the system now works, no body is oppressed, they all have food on their tables and are just plain happy?

Whether or not they should change is up to them, really. I doubt everyone would be happy with such arrangements. Any structure of authority will have flaws, whether it's a kingdom, a "republic" or a corporation.

If they are "just plain happy," I wouldn't be quick to attribute it to the king. As the video suggests, the people seem conservative, uneasy and even superstitious about change.

Grandpa h.

[Praxius]

indeed, but who are we to say this is in their best interests and perhaps they just don't know that democracy is better?

I mean, I see things in their life that we just don't have, their priorities in life are different then most.... I mean if they don't like the way they live I am sure the King doesn't have a huge armada of soldiers to hunt them down if they want to leave.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius indeed, but who are we to say this is in their best interests and perhaps they just don't know that democracy is better? I mean, I see things in their life that we just don't have, their priorities in life are different then most....

I obviously can't tell them what they want or how to live, but they seem too deeply committed to traditions, to the point of not knowing how to organize outside of the prevailing system (at least if the video is correct).

They seem to be a somewhat peaceful people, anyway, and they do not seem particularly susceptible to the party politics of speechwriters and public relations spectacles. I'd consider that a plus.

Grandpa h.

[Keith Hamburger]

There are plenty of Americans that want a strong central government to make decisions for them. They claim to want a democracy because that's what's been drilled in their heads in government schools for the past 150 years, but, what they really want is to be told what to do and to be able to tell others what to do.

Perhaps they could move there and talk those people into the best of both worlds, they can elect a king for life that can take care of everyone. Those of us that want to live in a free country as the US was originally intended can do so. And, everyone would be happy.

Keith

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger There are plenty of Americans that want a strong central government to make decisions for them. They claim to want a democracy because that's what's been drilled in their heads in government schools for the past 150 years, but, what they really want is to be told what to do and to be able to tell others what to do. Perhaps they could move there and talk those people into the best of both worlds, they can elect a king for life that can take care of everyone. Those of us that want to live in a free country as the US was originally intended can do so. And, everyone would be happy. Keith

Would not work since the nation would fall apart due to lack a population.

Society today is more fast paced and demanding than 200 years ago. People want control because they either don't have the time or the desire. People like choice but they don't want to keep informed of every decision and action, but rather to put people into office who support their views and act in accordance.

Yet another reason why the constitution is outdated. It demands an era where everyone has the time and resources to group up and discuss every planed bill, law, and event. In a nation of near 300 million there is far to much going on to keep informed on everything, even in a state with a few million there exists the same problem. Unless of course you want the hundreds of mini independent states and the conflict and failing economy's that go with them. In that case the few like yourself seem to agree that no matter how bad things get its better to stick to a 200 year old concept for all eternity.

[B1NKS]

I think our country can adapt to changing circumstances while still remaining true to the constitutional ideals we hold so dearly.

[Alive]

Is democracy the right choice for anyone? Does it make people happy? Does it increase well-being? I remain unconvinced. Democracy, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, except the freedom to vote. The people can vote away any of their freedoms, while conversely, a single-party state can guarantee more freedoms than the people actually would choose for themselves.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Alive Is democracy the right choice for anyone? Does it make people happy? Does it increase well-being? I remain unconvinced. Democracy, by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, except the freedom to vote.

Nothing could be more contrary to the ideals of democracy.

Democracy can mean plenty of things:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk'rə-sē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

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.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Has it been a requirement for democracy to entail voting? Not really. There is direct democracy, which entails egalitarianism, not through elected representatives but through direct consensus.
Voting is not the principle, but a tactical consideration.

The perversions of democracy called "Representative Democracy" do continue on, but there's nothing particularly open and egalitarian about it.

Grandpa h.

[Alive]

grandpa,

Dictionaries are generally poor places for finding good definitions. But voting doesn't even have to do with my point. Direct democracy is worse than representative democracy; it magnifies all of its problems. As I have said on other threads, I do not feel like being governed by people who are manipulated by campaign ads on TV. I want to be governed by the most moral, the most skilled, the most intelligent/knowledgable, and the most concerned about my ideals. How that comes about I care little; I don't worship any particular system, I'm just interested in the outcome.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Alive grandpa, Dictionaries are generally poor places for finding good definitions. But voting doesn't even have to do with my point.

Actually, it did have something to do with your point, because you portrayed democracy as only about voting.

But at least you admit you "want to be governed," which is pretty straightforward.
However, I am a bit perplexed. If you "do not feel like being governed by people who are manipulated by campaign ads on TV," why do you want to be governed? Obviously, representative democracy hasn't gotten rid of those advertisments, and has basically rigged us for having a two-party system. Why does this happen? I'd guess it's precisely because those who '"want to be governed" have shaped a naive culture.

Grandpa h.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Alive grandpa, Dictionaries are generally poor places for finding good definitions. But voting doesn't even have to do with my point. Direct democracy is worse than representative democracy; it magnifies all of its problems. As I have said on other threads, I do not feel like being governed by people who are manipulated by campaign ads on TV. I want to be governed by the most moral, the most skilled, the most intelligent/knowledgable, and the most concerned about my ideals. How that comes about I care little; I don't worship any particular system, I'm just interested in the outcome.

Actually Direct Democracy can and would work quite well with todays technology. I laid out a method and system in which could make the system work today somewhere in the forums a while back.

The main problem with Direct Democracy in the past was it was difficult to reach and get all the populace to meet and properly debate and vote what was required and interested by the community.... with the internet and cell phones, etc.... this could be done quite easily.

[Alive]

Quote by: grandpa However, I am a bit perplexed. If you "do not feel like being governed by people who are manipulated by campaign ads on TV," why do you want to be governed?

Since we are discussing different government systems, I am assuming that we agree that we want government. Government is a requirement for democracy or any of its alternatives.

Obviously, representative democracy hasn't gotten rid of those advertisments, and has basically rigged us for having a two-party system.

Exactly. So if some democracy turns out this bad, why do you want an even more democratic system?

[Alive]

Quote by: Praxius Actually Direct Democracy can and would work quite well with todays technology.

I do not mean that direct democracy can't technically work, I mean it's a poor system. We can implement it, but its effect will be to lessen the quality of government.

[Praxius]

Exactly, lessen the quality of government and putting the decision making into the people whom it directly affects.... then when something passes or is implimented, nobody can bitch and complain.

And if you don't vote or input your views into the system, you also can't complain when things don't go your way.... but I feel it'd bring a lot more accuracy to what the overall country wants/needs as well as the direction to take the country, rather then voting in one person who will "Cut us the best Deal" and do what they feel we want.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius CBC.ca | The National | Archive | International/U.S. | Inside Bhutan Direct Video Link: http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/23745/thenati...tan-112607.wmv This could also be thrown into Politics and Government, but I feel this has more to do with affects on a paticular society in question, Bhutan. Apparently the Current King of Bhutan has decided to step down and change his country to a Democracy..... however the people of Bhutan all oppose the idea, find it confusing, fearful of division, generally they are happy with their lives as is now. In other words, the people do not want Democracy, but rather their King instead. It's a catch 22 if you ask me: • The King wants Democracy, therefore you obey your king and conform to Democracy, or.... • The people decide democratically if they want democracy or not.... they clearly don't by this video report, so therefore should they go back to their king? I recomend watching the entire thing, as it isn't too long, picture and audio quality we very good, and explains itself quite well. Basically I have one question for this debate in paticular: Do you feel these people need or should conform to Democracy once you see how their lives are and what their main principles are (ie: Gross National Happiness over Gross Domestic Product) Or do you feel they don't need it for their way of life. Is Democracy Right for Everyone?

Democracy is direct rule by the citizens themselves - such as ancient Athens had for a time. Are you sure that's what the king of Bhutan wants? Are you sure he doesn't want something more along the lines of a republic?